Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

dc_dux · 06-18-2007, 08:58 PM

ace...you have an absolute unique perspective on things that IMO borders on the absurd.

Even though there is no reasonable comparison to the D-Day invasion of France, of course there was a post Normandy occupation plan...a bit more detailed than "lets see which army gets to Berlin first" (wtf....do you really believe that?).

To start, "civil affairs" divisions of the Allied armies were dropped by parachute in the second wave of the assault at Normandy. These administrators—civil engineers, attorneys, investment bankers, military policemen, scientists and physicians, etc raced by jeep to town halls to take control of each village moments after it was liberated. They sealed roads, declared martial law, captured and guarded food supplies, etc. (just the highlights of the immediate occupation plans)

I was actually being a bit generous in describing the WH National Strategy for Victory in Iraq as a glorified "statement of goals and objectives" rather than a plan ..written well after the fact. It was in fact, a self-promoting PR piece with no specific actions identified to respond to any potential scenario other than "we will be greeted as liberators" and filled with bullshit platitudes that bore no resemblance to the truth (eg....page 5 - On the economic front... “Our restore, reform, build, strategy is achieving results.” On the political front... “Our Isolate, Engage, and Build strategy is working.” On the security front... “Our clear, hold, and build strategy is working.”)

I agree it is not possible to plan for every possible scenario. but there appears to have been no planning at all to prepare to respond any pre-war intel that did not conform with the WH pre-determined outcome...most particularly the intel identifying potential Baathist backlash, sectarian conflict and al Queda infiltration as well as the potential enormous problems in reconstructing the country's government and infrastructure.

THERE WAS NO PLAN (a plan requires actions steps as opposed to a more general strategy) and that was incompetence bordering on malfeasance on the part of DoD and ultimately the White House.

As ludicrous as the D-Day comparison, your suggestion that "the best written and detailed plan could have lead to worse results" is even more baseless.

You cant keep rewriting history without facts and you have no facts to support your contentions above.

You did it in the Gonzales discussion with your assertion that previous administrations likely broke the hiring laws for political gain, but it just wasnt "uncovered" ...and you are doing it again here.

Not that you probably care what I or others here think, but you lose more credibility each time you make up these wild scenarios to suit your agenda.

06-18-2007, 08:58 PM	#25 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace...you have an absolute unique perspective on things that IMO borders on the absurd. Even though there is no reasonable comparison to the D-Day invasion of France, of course there was a post Normandy occupation plan...a bit more detailed than "lets see which army gets to Berlin first" (wtf....do you really believe that?). To start, "civil affairs" divisions of the Allied armies were dropped by parachute in the second wave of the assault at Normandy. These administrators—civil engineers, attorneys, investment bankers, military policemen, scientists and physicians, etc raced by jeep to town halls to take control of each village moments after it was liberated. They sealed roads, declared martial law, captured and guarded food supplies, etc. (just the highlights of the immediate occupation plans) I was actually being a bit generous in describing the WH National Strategy for Victory in Iraq as a glorified "statement of goals and objectives" rather than a plan ..written well after the fact. It was in fact, a self-promoting PR piece with no specific actions identified to respond to any potential scenario other than "we will be greeted as liberators" and filled with bullshit platitudes that bore no resemblance to the truth (eg....page 5 - On the economic front... “Our restore, reform, build, strategy is achieving results.” On the political front... “Our Isolate, Engage, and Build strategy is working.” On the security front... “Our clear, hold, and build strategy is working.”) I agree it is not possible to plan for every possible scenario. but there appears to have been no planning at all to prepare to respond any pre-war intel that did not conform with the WH pre-determined outcome...most particularly the intel identifying potential Baathist backlash, sectarian conflict and al Queda infiltration as well as the potential enormous problems in reconstructing the country's government and infrastructure. THERE WAS NO PLAN (a plan requires actions steps as opposed to a more general strategy) and that was incompetence bordering on malfeasance on the part of DoD and ultimately the White House. As ludicrous as the D-Day comparison, your suggestion that "the best written and detailed plan could have lead to worse results" is even more baseless. You cant keep rewriting history without facts and you have no facts to support your contentions above. You did it in the Gonzales discussion with your assertion that previous administrations likely broke the hiring laws for political gain, but it just wasnt "uncovered" ...and you are doing it again here. Not that you probably care what I or others here think, but you lose more credibility each time you make up these wild scenarios to suit your agenda. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-18-2007 at 09:34 PM..