Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
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?).
|
When was the post occupation plan developed?
From your point of view my questions and comparison are absurd, I think I ask for more than just the anti-Bush talking points and many find that offensive. Whenever I ask for more, I get the "you are..." this or that line. This is what you folks sound like to me:
Anti-Bush person - Bush had no plan.
Me - I think Bush had a plan, here it is...
Anti-Bush person - You are out of touch with reality and you are a (fill-in the blank).
Me - What should the plan look like, in order for it to meet your standard?
Anti-bush person - My Goodness you are such an (fill-in the blank).
Me - What standard do you use to measure Bush's actions to past war-time Presidents?
Anti-Bush Person - You are totally off the subject and by the way you are such a (fill-in the blank).
I don't know if I am truly absurd, but I certainly have a unique ability to irritate anti-Bush folks in this forum. The nerve of me asking questions and challenging the talking points of anti-Bush folks.
Quote:
|
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)
|
Again when was the planning for this done in relationship to the invasion? It seemed to me that we had people during WWII who could think on their feet and develop plans based on circumstances presented.
Also most of this was done after the military secured various locations. In Iraq intially parts of the country were secured, later this security broke down. Initially, there were plans in place that allowed for the formation of an Iraqi government and constitution, people voted and participated like never before. Intitally thing appeared to be on the right track, then there was a breakdown. So was there a plan? I say yes.
Quote:
|
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.”)
|
You clearly state what you considered not a plan, so I ask what should a plan from the White House look like for the occupation after the invasion? How much detail? How much certainty should there have been, given the level of uncertainty in the country? Should the White House plan included times and dates for military potty breaks?
Quote:
|
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.
|
You use the word "appears". I suggested that we may not know the full extent of any planning or lack of planning until the key players are out of office and the war is over. Is that absurd? Why would my saying that make anti-Bush people go balistic?
Quote:
|
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.
|
On one hand we have a general who says there was no phase 4 plan, and that they intended to leave. and of course now we have many Americans saying we should leave, and that perhaps we should have known an occupation was not going to work.
On another hand we again have a general saying there was no phase 4 plan, and it seems at some point we could do that to infinity. We had a phase 4 plan but no phase 5 plan...etc...etc...etc.
On another hand we have a general (remember my bias for loyalty) who is making negative public statements against the head of the military at a time of war. My intial reaction to something like that will always be negative and one of distrust. My tendency will be to totally dismiss what he says, but in this thread I didn't.
Perhaps those points are absurd also, and if true I will wear the label with honor.
Quote:
|
As ludicrous as the D-Day comparison,
|
Now, the of making a historical comparision to a current event is "ludicrous", or are you saying I am "ludicrous"? Isn't more efficient just to show or explain why the comparison is "ludicrous"?
Quote:
|
your suggestion that "the best written and detailed plan could have lead to worse results" is even more baseless.
|
There is a basis. Perhaps you don't understand it. I will simply say there are people in the world who do a lot of planning and little of getting things done, and there are people who do a lot of getting things done and little planning. Which are you?
Quote:
|
You cant keep rewriting history without facts and you have no facts to support your contentions above.
|
What contention(s) do you want support for?
Quote:
|
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.
|
My, my, the nerve of me to suggest such a thing.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I made up a wild scenario? I wasn't the one who introduced Emer Fudd into the discussion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
There was a really astounding story on the NPR show "This American Life" a few weeks back that addressed exactly this. The story asserted that across the board, the question of how to manage the occupation was brushed aside as somebody else's problem. Planners in both the White House and the Pentagon basically completely ignored the post "liberation" phase of the operation, because they couldn't adequately predict how it was going to go, and because it's the hard, glory-free part, and they were fixated on the invasion and capture of Saddam. They justified it by saying that the Red Cross or somebody would take care of that part.
There was a pre-invasion report done by a guy (I can't remember his name or rank now, sorry) that basically laid out EXACTLY what we're currently facing... and it was utterly ignored by all the planners. In fact, they took several actions that he specifically warned them not to do. Disbanding the Iraqi army, for instance.
So it's not just that there was no plan. It's that the effort to MAKE such a plan was deliberately and specifically resisted by those in charge.
|
In DC's post #23, he includes quotes from General Scheid were the General states the Rumsfeld had no intention of occupying Iraq. At some point that changed, but if that was the original plan, how can you now say that the intel about how difficult an occupation would be was ignored? It seems Rumsfeld agreed and stated that the American people would not tolerate a long drawn out war based on an occupation. Remember Rumsfeld, the guy everyone wanted out as soon as possible. Perhaps he was the voice of reason. Perhaps a better question is - why did they change the original plan?