NationStates Jolt Archive

I know, I know. I've got the fatigue. But that doesn't stop me from pointing out the reasons we're in the mess we're in in Iraq. This article from Knight-Ridder newspapers (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9927782.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp) paints a dreary picture of the prelude to war in Iraq, and the lack of planning involved in it.
WASHINGTON - In March 2003, days before the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American war planners and intelligence officials met at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to review the Bush administration's plans to oust Saddam Hussein and implant democracy in Iraq.

Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel who was giving a briefing showed a slide describing the Pentagon's plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war, known in the planners' parlance as Phase 4-C. He was uncomfortable with his material - and for good reason.

The slide said: "To Be Provided."

A Knight Ridder review of the administration's Iraq policy and decisions has found that it invaded Iraq without a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. The administration also failed to provide some 100,000 additional U.S. troops that American military commanders originally wanted to help restore order and reconstruct a country shattered by war, a brutal dictatorship and economic sanctions.

Read the whole thing, but be warned--it'll probably depress you.

I know, I know. I've got the fatigue. But that doesn't stop me from pointing out the reasons we're in the mess we're in in Iraq. This article from Knight-Ridder newspapers (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9927782.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp) paints a dreary picture of the prelude to war in Iraq, and the lack of planning involved in it.


Read the whole thing, but be warned--it'll probably depress you.

The New York Times beat you to it, long ago. Afghanistan was a "quagmire" seven days in, remember? It was on the front page. And then, seven days into Iraq, during that sandstorm.. what did the front page say? Another "quagmire," right on time. Wasn't true then, and isn't true now.

Wasn't true then, and isn't true now.

Except that it is widely conscidered to be one now.

Nice way to completely and utterly miss the point of the post, Pepe. Not that I expected anything less.

Except that it is widely conscidered to be one now.

Nov. 3, you'll be hearing about Iraq same as you heard about the Afghan elections.. that is, nothing. We've got election-year hyperventilation in the press, nothing more.

we already know that we didn't plan vary well for the war in iraq. We know we didn't have a good plan...We know we need to do something....so just drop it

Nice way to completely and utterly miss the point of the post, Pepe. Not that I expected anything less.

It's more that the facts don't warrant much consideration of the article.. some generals and DoD staff wanted 500,000 troops this time around, which would've been overkill.. others wanted 75,000 and a slower progression with more airstrikes. Either way, we got it done, set up the 'green zone,' secured the oilfields and got the process moving.. not having a specific plan going in might've had something to do with the unpredictability of war.. just maybe?


Edit: if anyone wants some fun weekend reading, check out the predictions for Gulf I.. it's comedy. ;) Then go on about how precise we should've been..

we already know that we didn't plan vary well for the war in iraq. We know we didn't have a good plan...We know we need to do something....so just drop it
I would, if it weren't for the fact that a large chunk of Bush's campaign--when it hasn't been slamming Kerry--has been based on the idea that Iraq was not only the right thing to do, but that it's been done in the right way all along and that Bush is the best person to continue the job. Stories like this put the lie to the second part of the thesis, and the lack of WMD put the lie to the first, so why shouldn't we continue to bring it up?

I would, if it weren't for the fact that a large chunk of Bush's campaign--when it hasn't been slamming Kerry--has been based on the idea that Iraq was not only the right thing to do, but that it's been done in the right way all along and that Bush is the best person to continue the job. Stories like this put the lie to the second part of the thesis, and the lack of WMD put the lie to the first, so why shouldn't we continue to bring it up?

Bush not playing into the hands of the DNC and bemoaning our tactical mistakes is the same as claiming everything went perfect? I don't think he would've been visiting amputees and families of the dead if he had a true belief that everything had been done right, categorically.

It's more that the facts don't warrant much consideration of the article.. some generals and DoD staff wanted 500,000 troops this time around, which would've been overkill.. others wanted 75,000 and a slower progression with more airstrikes. Either way, we got it done, set up the 'green zone,' secured the oilfields and got the process moving.. not having a specific plan going in might've had something to do with the unpredictability of war.. just maybe?
IEven if the situation is unpredictable, you've got to have some sort of plan, because a plan can be modified and changed as the need arrives. You don't want to be standing around with your dick in your hand and your thumb up your ass making it up as you go along. That's retarded.

I didn't read the article, but the most damning thing about the Bush Administration has been post-War Iraq. They counted too much on being seen as liberators, too much trust in Iraqi nationals who fled Iraq and had a blind hatred towards Saddam, (how long has Chalabi been in the pocket of the Iranians? :rolleyes: ), not enough troops on the ground to provide security, not moving fast enough to restore services, employment, moving too slow towards training a civilian police force, etc. All of these things shows that the Administration has been um less than competent :D

Speaking of post-war Iraq, remember that claim that Bush made that his commanders had everything they needed and that he'd have given them whatever they wanted todo the job? Turns out that's not exactly true either. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=nm/iraq_supplies_dc)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The former top U.S. commander in Iraq (news - web sites) complained last winter to the Pentagon (news - web sites) that a poor supply situation was threatening the Army's ability to fight, The Washington Post reported on its Web site on Sunday.

Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez wrote in a letter to top Army officials that the lack of key spare parts for tanks, helicopters and other systems was such a severe problem that "I cannot continue to support sustained combat operations with rates this low," the newspaper reported.