Iraq War's Third Anniversary Draws Harsh Criticism From Analysts and Former Officials

As the third anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq arrived in March 2006, a wave of criticism from analysts, former officials, and commentators intensified pressure on the Bush administration over its management of the war.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton, who oversaw training of Iraqi security forces in 2003 and 2004, publicly called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation in the New York Times, blaming him for strategic, operational, and tactical failures in Iraq.

Military analyst Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies evaluated seven major objectives of the war and concluded that all had fallen short. He argued that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction threat was nonexistent, that Iraqis were worse off than under Saddam Hussein in many respects, and that the broader Middle East had grown less stable. Oil exports remained below prewar levels, and US economic modernization efforts had largely failed.

Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski called the war prohibitively costly and said American credibility, legitimacy, and moral standing had all suffered. He argued that a narrow circle of decision-makers compounded errors while evading accountability.

Conservative commentator William Buckley also voiced frustration, suggesting the administration lacked sufficient resources to manage Iraq after Saddam's removal.

Historical summary. TurkishPress restated this wire report, first published in March 2006, in its own words.