NationStates Jolt Archive


RAND corp: Iraq war planning faulty USArmy: Shhh!

Daistallia 2104
11-02-2008, 14:34
Heh. Even RAND says the US army's Iraq planning was bad. "Better" yet, the Army tried to cover it up....

WASHINGTON — The Army is accustomed to protecting classified information. But when it comes to the planning for the Iraq war, even an unclassified assessment can acquire the status of a state secret.

That is what happened to a detailed study of the planning for postwar Iraq prepared for the Army by the RAND Corporation, a federally financed center that conducts research for the military.

After 18 months of research, RAND submitted a report in the summer of 2005 called “Rebuilding Iraq.” RAND researchers provided an unclassified version of the report along with a secret one, hoping that its publication would contribute to the public debate on how to prepare for future conflicts.

But the study’s wide-ranging critique of the White House, the Defense Department and other government agencies was a concern for Army generals, and the Army has sought to keep the report under lock and key.

A review of the lengthy report — a draft of which was obtained by The New York Times — shows that it identified problems with nearly every organization that had a role in planning the war. That assessment parallels the verdicts of numerous former officials and independent analysts.

The study chided President Bush — and by implication Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who served as national security adviser when the war was planned — as having failed to resolve differences among rival agencies. “Throughout the planning process, tensions between the Defense Department and the State Department were never mediated by the president or his staff,” it said.

The Defense Department led by Donald H. Rumsfeld was given the lead in overseeing the postwar period in Iraq despite its “lack of capacity for civilian reconstruction planning and execution.”

The State Department led by Colin L. Powell produced a voluminous study on the future of Iraq that identified important issues but was of “uneven quality” and “did not constitute an actionable plan.”

Gen. Tommy R. Franks, whose Central Command oversaw the military operation in Iraq, had a “fundamental misunderstanding” of what the military needed to do to secure postwar Iraq, the study said.

article continues (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/washington/11army.html?ex=1203397200&en=95b1ec5e79fd56ca&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY)
Lunatic Goofballs
11-02-2008, 14:38
Why do you hate Freedom so? :(



;)
Nodinia
11-02-2008, 14:42
I think it stems from his/her hatred of Baby Jesus, love of free money for lazy people and dislike of apple pie...but I could be wrong.....
Daistallia 2104
11-02-2008, 14:48
LOL

Curses, foiled again! *Shakes fist* I'll get you yet, Freedomland!

Edit: And let me tell you my evil plan involving my magic time warp....
Laerod
11-02-2008, 14:49
I think it stems from his/her hatred of Baby Jesus, love of free money for lazy people and dislike of apple pie...but I could be wrong.....No, it's because when asked "Why don't you leave if you hate it so much?", Dai did leave and went to Japan, only he kept his citizenship and continues to sabotage United Freedomland. :mad:
Khadgar
11-02-2008, 15:02
I find it kind of absurd that the generals claimed the report didn't provide any useful data. I hope that's just what they're saying publicly and that they take the report as a chance to learn something.
Hezballoh
11-02-2008, 19:42
Solution to US military problem:
Reorganisation:
lower spending for military, and focus on home units, resulting in:
US Army+US National Guard+US Airforce= New US National Guard! (Elite forces: US Rangers!)
US Navy+Us Coast Guard+US Marines= New US CoastGuard! (Elite Forces: Marines!)
Intelligence organisations:
reform all intelligence services into 2 groups:
CIA: all threats from outside the US: terrorists, rogue nations, etc.
FBI: all threats inward: organised crime, drug dealers, gangs etc.
Fortuna_Fortes_Juvat
11-02-2008, 19:57
Solution to US military problem:
Reorganisation:
lower spending for military, and focus on home units, resulting in:
US Army+US National Guard+US Airforce= New US National Guard! (Elite forces: US Rangers!)
US Navy+Us Coast Guard+US Marines= New US CoastGuard! (Elite Forces: Marines!)
Intelligence organisations:
reform all intelligence services into 2 groups:
CIA: all threats from outside the US: terrorists, rogue nations, etc.
FBI: all threats inward: organised crime, drug dealers, gangs etc.


Wow. You know absolutely nothing about how the US military is organized.

First of all, the National Guard is part of the army, more specifically, army units placed under state control to deal with national emergencies and can be federalized if need be. The USAF has all of the long range strategic bombers as well as air superiority fighters and strike craft, so the lion's share of it would be useless is employed purely as a defence force. USCG has both naval and law enforcement jurisdiction, so iit would be stupid to lump it in with the Navy, which operates cruisers and (holds in reserves) battleships and carriers in addition to smaller craft. The Navy's stock of planes is not as diverse as the USAF's and would be less effective without them. The Marines are a strike force, and need Army Navy and Air Force support to preform most exxectively in sustained combat.