Bush: no plan for peace

[Unbreakable]

Interesting, to say the least. I cant for the life of me figure out how someone could want four more years of these people.

As John Stewart said, most people spend more time planning a weekend vacation than Bush and company spent planning on Iraq.

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."

[ChrisGrenard]

I read about the first page. Damn is that thing long.

Anyway, I think the current situation over there pretty much proves that even if they *did* have a plan, it was a pretty bad one.

[Unbreakable]

Jeez, it seems Afghanistan is in the same boat as Iraq. Mission: Unaccomplished.

As an aside, why is drudgereTort now having way better stories than drudgereport?

[WAW]

I think your being unfair. Just friday we put the smack down on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He's only been the #1 boogie man in Iraq for the last year maybe we should cut off his money. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills is anyone who's at least halfass competent in charge.

[Grifman]

Interesting, to say the least. I cant for the life of me figure out how someone could want four more years of these people.

As John Stewart said, most people spend more time planning a weekend vacation than Bush and company spent planning on Iraq.

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."

Yes, I read the article in my newspaper. That's my biggest complaint with the whole Iraq war and the Bush admin - the Admin's plan to win the war was brilliant - but the post war administration has been utterly incompetent. Bush really ought to clean house and fire his whole team on Iraq - their incompetence has cost hundreds of American and thousands of Iraqi lives. I really can't believe the level of incompetence given the importance of what we were doing. We had no business carrying out a war against Iraq unless we also had a plan to win the peace - which it is obvious we never had.

Grifman

[Godzilla Blitz]

I've gotten the same impression from reading Woodward's book, Plan of Attack. I'm only about halfway through it, but it's more and more apparent as I read it that the thrust of the administration's efforts was fixated on ousting Hussein. In light of the detailed war plans that were drafted, there appears to have been comparatively little planning for what would happen after the war.

I think part of the reason is the fact that the invasion itself stretched our defense department to the limit. This is in no way excusing an adminstration for going in to Iraq without a detailed plan for the peace, but there is significant commentary about how the entire Iraq invasion itself was tacked on to a Pentagon that was already frightfully overburdened with committments elsewhere in the world. We simply did not have the time or the manpower to give a peace plan much thought at the time.

[Asharak]

I've gotten the same impression from reading Woodward's book, Plan of Attack. I'm only about halfway through it, but it's more and more apparent as I read it that the thrust of the administration's efforts was fixated on ousting Hussein.

Having finished it, I can tell you that it doesn't change. Plan of Attack documents very little in the way of post-war planning (note: I will not claim that proves there was none; Woodward's focus was on the war buildup, and I'm not naive enough to believe that he saw or was given access to everything that was going on).

I will say this for the administration, unpopular though it may be these days: they were spot on with their plans for the invasion itself. All the criticism at the time about the small invasion force was completely off-base. The invasion and takeover itself could hardly have gone better. It has been rather disingenious (and, frankly, Bushesque) of the left to have shifted that criticism since then from "the army is too small" to "the army is too small to maintain control".

But what I find most interesting about that planning is that it proves that the planners weren't stupid. You don't plan a war that goes that smoothly on the IQ of monkey sniffing crack. So if the planners weren't stupid, how did the post-war scenario turn into such a mess?

That's what I think proves the incredible shortsightedness (and consequent lack of preparation for the occupation) inside the Pentagon, not Bob Woodward's writing.

- Ash