The Architects Of The Iraq War: Where Are They Now?

[Vraltupp]

INTERESTING!!!!

President Bush has not fired any of the architects of the Iraq war. In fact, a review of the key planners of the conflict reveals that they have been rewarded – not blamed – for their incompetence.

rest of the story here - http://thinkprogress.org/the-architects-where-are-they-now/

//Stripflash

[2Sheds_Jackson]

If you can plan a better war, why don't you apply for the job? And if you can't plan a better war, I wonder how you can claim that anybody else's plan is "incompetent"? Yawn.

[Vraltupp]

If you can plan a better war, why don't you apply for the job? And if you can't plan a better war, I wonder how you can claim that anybody else's plan is "incompetent"? Yawn.

WW2, good plans from the allies, falkland war, fast and mission accomplished, korea, vietnam and Iraq, amateur!

[khukuri]

before people blame the problems of iraq on internal reasons they should clean up theyre own inapt polititians...

[dangerclose]

WW2, good plans from the allies,

Including lighting up Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[James]

Including lighting up Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Oh, we lit up a LOT more than that.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

WW2, good plans from the allies, falkland war, fast and mission accomplished, korea, vietnam and Iraq, amateur!

WW2 is a great example - such as thousands of our troops killed in single days due to incompetence, lack of planning, lack of proper materials, we killed tens of thousands of civilians on both sides, we tortured enemy troops, we put American civilians in camps, we censored the media, we lied to the public, we wound up with our troops scattered over the globe for 50+ years to maintain the "peace" it brought. By those standards Iraq is a model of efficiency.

And where is your plan?

[Herrmannek]

Next time we should use nukes.... there is no easier place to introduce democracy than a burnt land :)

[WarriorMonk]

go 2sheds!

[2Sheds_Jackson]

go 2sheds!

Well Jeez I mean come on. What do people expect, a clean TV war that can be done over a long weekend? I try to cut the planners a break - they have to fight a political, not military war. It's like Herrmannek said - it ain't like we don't have the military capability to do it. If I planned the war, it would have been over a lot quicker...but I'd probably have to go live in the mountains of Chile to avoid the war crimes trials. p-)

[aartamen]

almost every single war is entirely unique, you cannot possibly compare (in the same sentence no less) WW2 with it's TENS OF MILLIONS of casualties and the global scope to the Falklands operation or Vietnam or Iraq, the US lost relatively few servicemen but even they lost more people in a single day (on several occasions) that died in the whole of Iraq war, and on the Eastern Front 3,000 killed = quiet day

[2Sheds_Jackson]

almost every single war is entirely unique, you cannot possibly compare (in the same sentence no less) WW2 with it's TENS OF MILLIONS of casualties and the global scope to the Falklands operation or Vietnam or Iraq, the US lost relatively few servicemen but even they lost more people in a single day (on several occasions) that died in the whole of Iraq war, and on the Eastern Front 3,000 killed = quiet day

I'm not comparing the wars, I am comparing public reactions to setbacks in any war. We have developed this odd preconception of an indestructible, all-powerful America, who's victory and dominance is assured at all times. Our enemies (inside and out) capitalize upon this myth to construct a straw man that they can trot out as evidence that the war is going badly.

We still have the capabilities to conduct exactly the same kind of war that WWII was. We could bomb population centers. We could put radical Islamists in the US in camps. We could completely black out the media. We could torture (I mean really torture) the enemy. We could escalate the war to get many more people killed on either side.

If a thousand Marines die invading a tiny Pacific island in WWII - why is that not incompetence? When they have to wade ashore because their landing craft can't get over the reef, why is that not a lack of proper planning, and a lack of proper equipment? If their radios don't work because they're soaked - ditto. When we kill 20,000 civilians in Normandy - where are the cries about the lack of planning and our reckless disregard for human life? Are you saying it could not have been done better? Why didn't we warn them or wait?

My point is that this perceived incompetence in Iraq is as compared to what? No war? Because by any rational comparison to comparatively sized conflicts, Iraq comes out ahead. The f-inf Falklands? No offense, but my garage is bigger than the Falklands. So if there is no other war that Iraq can be compared to, then how does one arrive at incompetence? Compared to what - a non-existing plan that would have worked perfectly, really, trust me?

[mailmannz]

WW2, good plans from the allies, falkland war, fast and mission accomplished, korea, vietnam and Iraq, amateur!

You should probably spend some time actually researching WWII and the Falklands to see the cluster f8cks that went on in these conflicts by supposedly great generals!

Mailman

[Alan]

Okay, my 2 cents.

There was no way to plan the war correctly.

It's like asking, "How do you train to jump a tall building with a 30 kg backpack strapped to you?"

There is no answer, you can't, end of story.

The very idea of coming into another country whose belief system and way of life differs from yourself, and in one fell swoop changing them by military means, well, it's so ridiculous that no power on Earth could possibly make it work.

Human beings just plain don't work that way.

1. Nobody likes being told what to do.

2. Nobody likes invaders. Even good ones who try to make it better.


In 2003, I was looking at the TV and thinking "Are they idiots, this is never going to even begin to work". To me, it was just plain obvious.

[eugenlitwin]

only DONALD RUMSFELD looks stylish…I still hope that they have sort of Jesuit’s plan of liberation of middle east …

[Alan]

If you can plan a better war, why don't you apply for the job? And if you can't plan a better war, I wonder how you can claim that anybody else's plan is "incompetent"? Yawn.


Ridiculous logic.

One can look at a car and comment on its quality without being able to build one, same here.

[ElHombre]

If you can plan a better war, why don't you apply for the job? And if you can't plan a better war, I wonder how you can claim that anybody else's plan is "incompetent"? Yawn.

Likely because the advice given before the war by knowledgable people (Shinseki, for starters) about the pitfalls of the Bush admin's plans have been coming true before our eyes. Are we just supposed to ignore all the generals who noted that the Bush admin's plans were sheer idiocy just because folks can't meet your demand to turn a platter of hamburger back into a cow?

Bush is said to be a faithful believer in God. He must be, because the only way the plan his advisors came up with and he approved was going to work was by direct intervention by the Almighty.

[Secret Squirrel]

War simulation in 1999 pointed out Iraq invasion problems


A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, nearly three times the number there now.

And even then, the games showed, the country still had a chance of dissolving into chaos.

In the simulation, called Desert Crossing, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence participants concluded the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.

The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by George Washington University's National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.

"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground."

There are about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak in January of about 160,000.

A week after the invasion, in March 2003, the Pentagon said there were 250,000 U.S. ground force troops inside Iraq, along with 40,000 coalition force troops.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.

News of the war games results comes a day before judges are expected to deliver a verdict in Saddam Hussein war crimes trial.

The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some of the conclusions are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:


"A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."


"Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic -- especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."


"Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."


"The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."


"Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."


"A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."

link (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/04/war.games.ap/index.html)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Ridiculous logic.

One can look at a car and comment on its quality without being able to build one, same here.

You can't comment on the quality of one -with any authority - if you've never seen one built better. Since, in my opinion, there are no wars that have been done "better" for him to cite, then the only option left was for him to let us all know about the perfect plan that he himself has come up with.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Likely because the advice given before the war by knowledgable people (Shinseki, for starters) about the pitfalls of the Bush admin's plans have been coming true before our eyes. Are we just supposed to ignore all the generals who noted that the Bush admin's plans were sheer idiocy just because folks can't meet your demand to turn a platter of hamburger back into a cow?


What good is a war plan that is not implementable? A plan that would never see the light of day is no plan at all. If I go to the SECDEF and say I need half a million men to go to war...guess what, we will never, ever, go to war. If that's what it will be, fine, then let's disband the military, work on getting that deficit down, and resign ourselves to being completely at the mercy of world events.

If that doesn't sound good, then you have to develop the ability to deal with wars that will be difficult because they are limited in scope due to political considerations.

[Alan]

You can't comment on the quality of one -with any authority - if you've never seen one built better. Since, in my opinion, there are no wars that have been done "better" for him to cite, then the only option left was for him to let us all know about the perfect plan that he himself has come up with.


Afghanistan was done better at the start.

Gulf War 1 was a well executed war.

[Alan]

But, I have already said... I honestly can't see any way Iraq would've worked anyways, so the point is moot.

[Ordie]

I heard one being interviewed today on NPR.
His job was to identify targets and select ordnance. Three days after the bombing had stopped, he joined human rights organization and went to see his handy work.
It was a very interesting program.

Link:
http://www.thislife.org/