|
Junkie
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I'll take a shot at it 
ace....the "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" so-called "plan" that you linked to on the WH website was written in 2005 (not pre-invasion) in response to criticism that there was no plan... and is hardly a plan at all, but rather a glorified "statement of goals and objectives" ..written well after the fact.
From what I have read from numerous sources, there was no "phase IV" (after taking out Saddam) planning before the invasion.
Brigadier General Mark Scheid, chief of the Logistics War Plans Division after 9/11, and one of the people with primary responsibility for war planning...was interviewed last year and had this to say about pre-war planning for post Saddam Iraq: The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."
Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.
Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said.
"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.
"He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."
...."In his own mind he thought we could go in and fight and take out the regime and come out. But a lot of us planners were having a real hard time with it because we were also thinking we can't do this. Once you tear up a country you have to stay and rebuild it. It was very challenging."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._09/009469.php
From the National Security Archive: he U.S. Central Command's war plan for invading Iraq postulated in August 2002 that the U.S. would have only 5,000 troops left in Iraq as of December 2006, according to the Command's PowerPoint briefing slides, which were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and are posted on the Web today by the National Security Archive (www.nsarchive.org).
The PowerPoint slides, prepared by CentCom planners for Gen. Tommy Franks under code name POLO STEP, for briefings during 2002 for President Bush, the NSC, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the JCS, and Franks' commanders, refer to the "Phase IV" post-hostilities period as "UNKNOWN" and "months" in duration, but assume that U.S. forces would be almost completely "re-deployed" out of Iraq within 45 months of the invasion (i.e. December 2006).
"Completely unrealistic assumptions about a post-Saddam Iraq permeate these war plans," said National Security Archive Executive Director Thomas Blanton. "First, they assumed that a provisional government would be in place by 'D-Day', then that the Iraqis would stay in their garrisons and be reliable partners, and finally that the post-hostilities phase would be a matter of mere 'months'. All of these were delusions."
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/index.htm
To be provided: 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."
...
At the Pentagon, the director of the Joint Staff, Army Gen. George Casey, repeatedly pressed Gen. Tommy Franks, the head of the Central Command, for a "Phase 4," or postwar, plan, the senior defense official said.
"Casey was screaming, 'Where is our Phase 4 plan?' " the official said. It never arrived.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/war...ory/16325.html
|
For the sake of arguement for the moment I will say that I agree there was no plan because the discussion won't get past that issue otherwise.
Given no "Phase 4 plan" I ask the question how does the current situation compare to past wars? I would simply suggest that sometimes in war you have to make decisions on the "fly". During war, you may be presented with an opportunity or challenge that you did not anticipate. I used Normandy as an example, what was our plan after that invasion? Basically it was - let's see which army can get to Berlin first.
Also, most reasonable people can understand that it would have been virtually impossible to have a plan for every possible condition we might face after taking Sadaam out of office. So again assuming there was no "phase 4 plan", does not mean things had to go as badly as they have gone in Iraq. In fact, initially things were not as bad as they are now. Ironically the best written and detailed plan could have lead to worse results. So the current situation may be more of an execution issue rather than a planning issue.
Lastly, like it is stated in your post not everyone in the Administration agreed with Powell and his - if you break it, you fix it philosophy. Invading and leaving is actually a plan. So again, it may not have been the plan you wanted or agreed with, but that is different than saying there was no plan.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."
|