McCaffrey on Countdown Again. Rangel and the Draft.

Retired General Barry McCaffrey was on Countdown again last night to discuss the disaster that is the program for training the Iraqi military. His tone was a bit more embittered this time. He shot down calls for the paltry increase in troop levels as "nonsense". He cited recruitment problems and a need to "fix" the Army and Marines in order to continue fighting the War on Terror.

OLBERMANN: I'm joined now by retired four-star U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey. Thank you again for your time, sir.

GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY (RET.), U.S. ARMY: Yes, hi, Keith.

OLBERMANN: If the minimum bar for anybody's solution for the U.S. in Iraq is the training of Iraqis, are you shocked to hear that this late, the training is this bad?

MCCAFFREY: Well, you know, a very good article by Tom Ricks, very professional reporter. It's disappointing. You know, we've had—the whole effort has been grossly underresourced. The U.S. Army and the Marine Corps are stretched thin. They're fighting two wars, 20,000 troops in Afghanistan, 150,000 in Iraq. At the same time, they're trying to build two security institutions, the Afghan national army and police, and the Iraqi.

Tom Ricks is the author of Fiasco, a very damning look at how poorly the situation in Iraq has been handled.

So I think what we're seeing, you know, just right up front, Keith, you can't be an adviser unless you're qualified at your military task. And, oh, by the way, you need to go get 90 days of Arabic, for God's sakes, before you can operate in that environment.

So it's been done on the fly, it's grossly underresourced, we don't have the Iraqis, don't have the equipment they need, light armored vehicles, helicopters, AC-130s. We're going to have to buckle down and resource the war and try and achieve some minimal objectives in the coming 24 months.

OLBERMANN: Do you know, can you assess who, who did it this way, who decided to do this on the cheap, and almost sounding like it's a sidebar, a hobby, a side enterprise to this principal and most important tasks?

MCCAFFREY: Well, you know, I've been banging away on the underresourced aspect of this for two years. I think, you know, (INAUDIBLE) -- if it's $7 billion a month to fight the war, why, for God's sakes, would we think it was unacceptable to pay for 3,000 to 5,000 light armored vehicles, you know, let's say $2 billion, so that the Iraqis could replace us?

Which begs the question, "Just what are we spending that $7 billion per month on?"

So I think, again, Secretary Rumsfeld tried to do this thing on the cheap. You know, the argument was always, Well, look, they may — (INAUDIBLE) end up equipping both sides of a civil war.

You know, another thought, Keith, come to think of it, it's not just equipment or training, it's also the political will, the security forces, to fight for a legitimate government. That's been sadly lacking in the police case. There are factional militias, murderers, and in the case of the army, in many instances, they're really Kurdish troops, peshmerga, or they're Shia, or Sunni, and they're not taking orders from the national government.

Emphasis mine. A foreign government operating without the support of its people, police, and military, while being propped up by the US military? Sounds a bit like Vietnam.

OLBERMANN: The story that Thomas Ricks had yesterday on the three remaining options being outlined by the Pentagon in shorthand as go big, go long, or go home, going long said to be the favorite option, but does not going long, a shift of combat troops to a long-term training and advisory role, presume that the training procedures are not rife with problems, when (INAUDIBLE), they so obviously are rife with problems?

MCCAFFREY: Well, you know, first of all, I think all these options were nonsensical. If they weren't preceded by -- The U.S. Army's $61 billion short on equipment resources, most of our fighting brigades, except those in Afghanistan or Iraq, are basically broken, we're having terrible recruiting problems. We've got to go fix the U.S. Army and Marine Corps to sustain any option in the war on terror.

Rummy would've accused Barry of "not getting it." Not equating Iraq with the War on Terror shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the situation.

And that hasn't come up, and neither the Baker commission nor out of this leaked JCS reporting. We're not going to leave, that's just not going to happen. We're not going to reinforce. I would vehemently object to bubbling up 20,000 to 40,000 troops in the short run to demonstrate political resolve. That's nonsense. It won't make much of a tactical difference, and we'll end up extending those troops. Some of those troops, Keith, are on their, now, one unit I visited, fifth combat tour.

OLBERMANN: It's extraordinary. It's unbelievable that we're talking in these terms.

Retired U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey, also, of course, of MSNBC and NBC News. Always an honor to have you, sir. Thank you.

MCCAFFREY: Good to be with you, Keith.

OLBERMANN: For more on the political implications of U.S. policy in Iraq, such as it is at the moment, we're joined now, as promised, by our own Craig Crawford, also a columnist for "Congressional Quarterly."

Craig, good evening.

CRAIG CRAWFORD: I say, put General McCaffrey in charge.

OLBERMANN: That would be a good idea too.

---

There's talk in Congress about reinstituting the draft. And Democrat Charlie Rangel is the one talking about it. He said Sunday, "There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft."

Now why does he think this? I have a hard time wrapping my brain around that statement. I would think that W would say, "The more the merrier." Does Rangel believe that the American public would've been up in arms in 2003 over this? I think he's wrong. A majority of Americans supported taking out Saddam on the belief that he had WMD. A draft wouldn't have changed anything. He'd still insist that we stay the course. Didn't Rangel pick up that Bush didn't learn anything from Vietnam other that "We'll succeed unless we quit"?

And the American public believed LBJ when he said that Vietnam was crucial in the fight against Communism. People believed him for several years. The hippies were a minority of dissent. It wasn't until Nixon's second term that the majority of Americans changed their minds. Enough people believed him when he said that he "had a plan to end the Vietnam War," although he didn't. And they re-elected him. And that was with a draft.

No, Mr. Rangel, a draft doesn't change anything. Apparently, the generation that fell victim to the Draft in the 60's & 70's for a war of occupation didn't learn anything and re-elected someone who got their kids into another war of occupation.

\_/
DED