New report - post invasion planning sucked

[Onceler]

This basically just reiterates what anyone who has read anything on this topic already knows: the admin was so sure of a quick victory and that we'd be "welcomed as liberators" that very little thought was given to that which now consumes us: what to do with a post-Saddam Iraq.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,373448,00.html

There is no doubt that if it was a group of Democrats running this show, the way it has played out, that the Democratic Party would not be trusted with national security issues again for decades.

 

[Cypress]

You couldn't design a worse clusterf*ck.

Which is why I sometimes wonder, in a conspiratorial sense, if this isn't basically working out the way they wanted after all. In the broadest sense anyway.

Why would Bush want a strong, independent, sovereign Iraqi government anyway? They would just tell us to leave, to piss off, and would keep their oil resources nationalized. Obviously, Bush's Plan A was to install a pro-american strongman dictator - an Ahmed Chalabi. That obviously didn't work out. What was Bush's plan B? I don't think they really had one, but I think they most certainly didn't want to turn the iraq government over to a bathist strongman, an ayatollah Sistani, to some nationalist shia, or to some powerful military General. I think it's totally possible that when Plan A didn't work, the next best option was to design and support an inept and weak iraqi government. Which was then ensconced in the Green Zone, and had relatively power to tell Bush to get the fuck out. A weak central government that was, to some extent, dependent on Bush for money, arms, and protection. Bush's worst case scenario at this point is a strong, independent iraqi government - which would almost certainly be dominated by Shia strongmen, nationalist groups, and Shia clerics - who would not be receptive to an american occupation, let alone outsourcing iraq's oil to american and british multinationals.

I think a weak, and helpless Iraqi government, at this point, is exactly what Bush wants. This war, at this point, is about oil and american hegemony. I really don't think Bush wants a strong, nationalistic, independent iraqi government. I think bush will kill, maim, and destroy to keep a strong, nationalistic, sovereign iraq government from coalescing.

 

[ib1yysguy]

I could design a worse clusterfuck.

 

[Socrtease]

It is no doubt that everything being the same people like WRL would be screaming for Clinton's head had Clinton run this show. EVERYTHING ELSE BEING THE SAME!

 

[Damocles]

"New report - post invasion planning sucked"

How much money did we spend for this jewel from Captain Obvious Says?

 

[Beefy]

"New report - post invasion planning sucked"

How much money did we spend for this jewel from Captain Obvious Says?

LOL, I know. This s a "new" report?? I got this news 5 years ago. But some of us here still think its a splendid tactical and strategic masterpiece, so I guess maybe this would be "news" to them, but surely not me.

 

[Don Quixote]

i think that no pre-invasion, invasion or post invasion planning occurred

at least i hope that our military leaders did not plan this mess - PLEASE

 

[Don Quixote]

You couldn't design a worse clusterf*ck.

Which is why I sometimes wonder, in a conspiratorial sense, if this isn't basically working out the way they wanted after all. In the broadest sense anyway.

Why would Bush want a strong, independent, sovereign Iraqi government anyway? They would just tell us to leave, to piss off, and would keep their oil resources nationalized. Obviously, Bush's Plan A was to install a pro-american strongman dictator - an Ahmed Chalabi. That obviously didn't work out. What was Bush's plan B? I don't think they really had one, but I think they most certainly didn't want to turn the iraq government over to a bathist strongman, an ayatollah Sistani, to some nationalist shia, or to some powerful military General. I think it's totally possible that when Plan A didn't work, the next best option was to design and support an inept and weak iraqi government. Which was then ensconced in the Green Zone, and had relatively power to tell Bush to get the fuck out. A weak central government that was, to some extent, dependent on Bush for money, arms, and protection. Bush's worst case scenario at this point is a strong, independent iraqi government - which would almost certainly be dominated by Shia strongmen, nationalist groups, and Shia clerics - who would not be receptive to an american occupation, let alone outsourcing iraq's oil to american and british multinationals.

I think a weak, and helpless Iraqi government, at this point, is exactly what Bush wants. This war, at this point, is about oil and american hegemony. I really don't think Bush wants a strong, nationalistic, independent iraqi government. I think bush will kill, maim, and destroy to keep a strong, nationalistic, sovereign iraq government from coalescing.

cy

maybe bushco did want it to come out this way and simply did the opposite of what the military planners wanted

 

[Damocles]

LOL, I know. This s a "new" report?? I got this news 5 years ago. But some of us here still think its a splendid tactical and strategic masterpiece, so I guess maybe this would be "news" to them, but surely not me.

Well, I expect him them to come out with a "new" study that says that Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. It should be a weekly column.

"Captain Obvious Says"

Today a "new" report was issued that shows that wearing seat belts saves lives and that smoking is bad for you.

 

[Onceler]

Well, I expect him them to come out with a "new" study that says that Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. It should be a weekly column.

"Captain Obvious Says"

Today a "new" report was issued that shows that wearing seat belts saves lives and that smoking is bad for you.

I'm sorry if it makes you uncomfortable.

These reports don't really cost all that much. Yeah, we all "know" what happened, and what kind of post-invasion plans they had, but I wouldn't dismiss the notion that it's important to put it all together in something more cohesive than 'we all know' for future admins & generations to learn from.

 

[Damocles]

I'm sorry if it makes you uncomfortable.

These reports don't really cost all that much. Yeah, we all "know" what happened, and what kind of post-invasion plans they had, but I wouldn't dismiss the notion that it's important to put it all together in something more cohesive than 'we all know' for future admins & generations to learn from.

Uncomfortable?

I've been saying it since 2003. This military planning has been the largest block of retardation I have seen from the US military it is as if we never learn a past lesson regardless of how close it is in history. In a direct military sense this has been some of the worst planning ever.

It doesn't make me 'uncomfortable' it makes me realize we waste a ton of cash on stupid studies. "Doesn't really cost that much" isn't much of an excuse, it is more of a confession.

 

[Onceler]

Well, we differ. I don't think it's "stupid" to officially document everything that led to such an enormous clusterf**k. I actually think it's kind of vital.

 

[Damocles]

Well, we differ. I don't think it's "stupid" to officially document everything that led to such an enormous clusterf**k. I actually think it's kind of vital.

I think that it is well-documented and will continue to be so without waste added to it.

I think that coming out with "new" reports of the same old thing is wasteful. Especially when it is so obvious.

The next report should be something like:

"Getting hit with shovels hurts."

 

[Onceler]

Shovels didn't cost us over a trillion & so much loss of life. That's really trivializing it.

And, like I said, there is nothing that's cohesive out there. There are bits & pieces; bringing them together into a more comprehensive view of what happened isn't a waste of time.

 

[Cypress]

Well, we differ. I don't think it's "stupid" to officially document everything that led to such an enormous clusterf**k. I actually think it's kind of vital.

I agree. The more this is documented the better.

How many millions of times did cons tell us we were hacks, for pointing out this disaster that is iraq? Its not until recently that its become conventional wisdom that Iraq was a total clusterf*ck, and was based on lies.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

This basically just reiterates what anyone who has read anything on this topic already knows: the admin was so sure of a quick victory and that we'd be "welcomed as liberators" that very little thought was given to that which now consumes us: what to do with a post-Saddam Iraq.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,373448,00.html

There is no doubt that if it was a group of Democrats running this show, the way it has played out, that the Democratic Party would not be trusted with national security issues again for decades.

Well this is something new.

 

[Damocles]

Shovels didn't cost us over a trillion & so much loss of life. That's really trivializing it.

And, like I said, there is nothing that's cohesive out there. There are bits & pieces; bringing them together into a more comprehensive view of what happened isn't a waste of time.

It really has little to do with what it was about, it has much to do with how obvious the result was to begin with. Any study or report is a waste of money when it is so obvious.

 

[Cypress]

It really has little to do with what it was about, it has much to do with how obvious the result was to begin with.

Any study or report is a waste of money when it is so obvious.

First, this wasn't obvious to two-time bush voters until very recently.

second, I get the impression that this is the first complete and comphrehensive report by the pentagon, to document the mistakes in full. Its 720 pages long, and written by top army historians.

I think there have been memos, news reports, academic reports, and limited studies before. But, nothing on this scale. a blunder of this magnitude needs all the scrutiny it can get, and it needs to be documented in a comprehensive way.

 

[Damocles]

First, this wasn't obvious to two-time bush voters until very recently.

second, I get the impression that this is the first complete and comphrehensive report by the pentagon, to document the mistakes in full. Its 720 pages long, and written by top army historians.

I think there have been memos, news reports, academic reports, and limited studies before. But, nothing on this scale. a blunder of this magnitude needs all the scrutiny it can get, and it needs to be documented in a comprehensive way.

“You are reading my article right now”

~ Captain Obvious on reading of the article

 

[cawacko]

"New report - post invasion planning sucked"

How much money did we spend for this jewel from Captain Obvious Says?

I agree that it is important to note how these various failures occured to hopefully learn from going forward.

One area that I found interesting as I had not paid all that much attention before was the battle between the DoD and the State Department. You had the DoD who worked with Iraqi exiles and wanted them to be brought into the new Iraqi government. And you had the State Department who did not want any Iraqi exiles involved and only Iraqi internals. State's feelings were the Exiles would not be reviewed as legitimate by the internals.

One result of this decision was we ended up not being without a functioning group ready to help lead an interim government and led to our occupation led by Bremer instead of Iraqi's.