PDA

View Full Version : Army Burrried Study Faulting Iraq Planning



Gayle in MD
02-11-2008, 03:57 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/washington/11army.html?ex=1360386000&en=cd27b3b4444afd98&ei=5 088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Gayle in MD
02-12-2008, 10:05 AM
<font color="red">The second page of this story is incredible. Here it is in case you didn't finish the article... </font color> A team of RAND researchers led by Nora Bensahel interviewed more than 50 civilian and military officials. As it became clear that decisions made by civilian officials had contributed to the Army’s difficulties in Iraq, researchers delved into those policies as well.

The report was submitted at a time when the Bush administration was trying to rebut building criticism of the war in Iraq by stressing the progress Mr. Bush said was being made. <font color="red">Guess this was just after he outed a CIA covert Agent specialist on WMD. </font color> The approach culminated in his announcement in November 2005 of his “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.” <font color="red">Gee, was that before or after Iraqi Freedom? </font color>

One serious problem the study described was the Bush administration’s assumption that the reconstruction requirements would be minimal. <font color="red">Not that they weren't warned, just decided to go off half cocked, on a fantasy, gee, fantasies are real popular with these REpublicans. </font color> There was also little incentive to challenge that assumption, the report said. <font color="red">right, who was going to publicly challenge it, when the remedy would be slander, being called a terrorist lover, or just being axed all together. </font color>

“Building public support for any pre-emptive or preventative war is inherently challenging, since by definition, action is being taken before the threat has fully manifested itself,” <font color="red">In this case, three to ten years in advance, acccording to intelligence estimates. </font color> it said. “Any serious discussion of the costs and challenges of reconstruction might undermine efforts to build that support.” <font color="red">Yeah, why muddy up the waters with the facts. </font color>

Another problem described was a general lack of coordination. “There was never an attempt to develop a single national plan that integrated humanitarian assistance, reconstruction, governance, infrastructure development and postwar security,” the study said. <font color="red">that George Bush, he's such a humanitarian. </font color>

One result was that “the U.S. government did not provide strategic policy guidance for postwar Iraq until shortly before major combat operations commenced.” <font color="red">Strategic policy, hmmm, still don't have it now. </font color> The study said that problem was compounded by General Franks, saying he took a narrow view of the military’s responsibilities after Saddam Hussein was ousted and assumed that American civilian agencies would do much to rebuild the country. <font color="red">Yeah, that's the ticket, let Halliburton, First Kuwaiti and Blackwater make their billions, while they incite the insurgents, by killing civilians. How many of our people died because of this mentality? </font color>

General Franks’s command, the study asserted, also assumed that Iraq’s police and civil bureaucracy would stay on the job and had no fallback option in case that expectation proved wrong. <font color="red">Nothing like assumptions when our folks are at risk! What a great military leader, kind of reminds one of Betrayus, who's not sure there's any point in all these American deaths, at all, actually. </font color> When Baghdad fell, the study said, American forces there “were largely mechanized or armored forces, well suited to waging major battles but not to restoring civil order. <font color="red">Translatin, untrained for the task at hand. </font color> That task would have been better carried out, ideally, by military police or, acceptably, by light infantry trained in urban combat.” <font color="red">Hmmm, Kerry's words exactly. </font color>

A “shortfall” in American troops was exacerbated when General Franks and Mr. Rumsfeld decided to stop the deployment of the Army’s First Cavalry Division when other American forces entered Baghdad, the study said, a move that reflected their assessment that the war had been won. <font color="red">Lessons learned, don't appoint people to run a war if they are incapable of knowing when it is over. </font color> Problems persisted during the occupation. <font color="red">And continue to this day throught the escalation, aka and advertised as The Surge. </font color> In the months that followed, the report said, there were “significant tensions, most commonly between the civilian and military arms of the occupation.” <font color="red">Gee wonder what pissed them off? People occupying their country, maybe, and companies killing civilians? Naw, that couldn't be it! </font color>

The poor planning had “the inadvertent effort of strengthening the insurgency,” <font color="red">translation, killing and maiming American Troops, but who has times for silly plans when occupying a corrupt, hostile country, with supposed ties to al Qaeda, and a vast inventory of WMD's? LMAO </font color> as Iraqis experienced a lack of security and essential services and focused on “negative effects of the U.S. security presence.” The American military’s inability to seal Iraq’s borders, a task the 2005 report warned was still not a priority, enabled foreign support for the insurgents to flow into Iraq. <font color="red">And maime and kill more of our troops, who are still dying due to this slight lack of planning, but hey, who has time for priorities when AMericans are being picked off in a foreign country? </font color>

In its recommendations, the study advocated an “inverted planning process” in which military planners would begin by deciding what resources were needed to maintain security after an adversary was defeated on the battlefield instead of treating the postwar phase as virtually an afterthought. <font color="red"> Translation, if you're going to invade a foreing country, don't do it assbackwards. </font color> More broadly, it suggested that there was a need to change the military’s mind-set, which has long treated preparations to fight a major war as the top priority. <font color="red">Good move, how silly. </font color> The Army has recently moved to address this by drafting a new operations manual which casts the mission of stabilizing war-torn nations as equal in importance to winning a conventional war. <font color="red">Gee, wasn't that in all that data they threw out when they crashed into the White House? </font color>

As the RAND study went through drafts, a chapter was written to emphasize the implications for the Army. An unclassified version was produced with numerous references to newspaper articles and books, an approach that was intended to facilitate publication. <font color="red">
BOOKS! Oh no! Books! Just mindless drabble to make money. Why read books!? </font color>

Senior Army officials were not happy with the results, <font color="red">But they're all stil alive. </font color> and questioned whether all of the information in the study was truly unclassified and its use of newspaper reports. RAND researchers sent a rebuttal. That failed to persuade the Army to allow publication of the unclassified report, and the classified version was not widely disseminated throughout the Pentagon. <font color="red">Yeah, right, who spread the truth around when you're setting up to tell more lies? </font color>

Neither General Lovelace nor General Melcher agreed to be interviewed for this article, but General Lovelace provided a statement through a spokesman at his headquarters in Kuwait. <font color="red">Poolside, I'm sure. </font color>

“The RAND study simply did not deliver a product that could have assisted the Army in paving a clear way ahead; it lacked the perspective needed for future planning by the U.S. Army,” he said. <font color="red">LMAO, like the Army Generals really used perspective, instead of rolling over for Bush! We've yet to see that clear way ahead, now it's more like a clear way down the drain. </font color>

A Pentagon official who is familiar with the episode offered a different interpretation: Army officials were concerned that the report would strain relations with a powerful defense secretary <font color="red">Oh no! Can't upset little Rummy, now can we! </font color> and become caught up in the political debate over the war. <font color="red">Yeah, when the American people are going down the drain for a senseless war, no need to give them any facts about it! </font color> “The Army leaders who were involved did not want to take the chance of increasing the friction with Secretary Rumsfeld,” <font color="red">The best Secretary Of State in History according to Dick Cheney, surely the best VP in history, and I just hope they get their medals of Freedom, like Franks, and all the other lying incompetents. </font color> said the official, who asked not to be identified because he did not want to alienate senior military officials. <font color="red">Or be slandered or axed. </font color>

The Army has asked that the entire RAND series be resubmitted and has said it will decide on its status thereafter.
<font color="red">Yeah, lets just put the whole thing off. Why start using lessons learned now, Bush doesn't integrate lessons learned, anyway, not the deciders mo at all. </font color>

wolfdancer
02-12-2008, 12:12 PM
Gayle,thanks for the report, and your "Cliff Notes".
I didn't know the war was still going on...thought i had read something about "Mission Accomplished" a few years back. Wasn't Bush awarded the Croix De Combat for that?
Well, not to worry...the "Surge" will take care of the few remaining, pockets of resistance.
General Lovelace...a name like that, he should have been in "Dr. Strangelove"? Bush developed his own "Art of War" strategy based on that film

Gayle in MD
02-12-2008, 12:18 PM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Gayle in MD
02-12-2008, 01:47 PM
Seems to get very quiet whenever more evidence of Bush Incompetence shows up in print, donchathink? /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

eg8r
02-12-2008, 01:52 PM
With all these responses by Gayle to her own thread it is beginning to look like she might be LWW in training.

eg8r

Deeman3
02-12-2008, 02:31 PM
Perhaps we had better go ahead and surrender to avoid the rush as the surge takes much more effect. If we wait too long, we may have missed an excellent opportunity to do so. Even NRP today noticed that Al Queida in Iraq has suffered big losses, are failing to recruit new members willing to die and are being opposed by the locals. They predict that they may even get down to sending mentally disturbed teen girls on suiside runs and using kids so young they can't carry the IED's...wait, that's already happening.

I bet they can't wait until November....

wolfdancer
02-12-2008, 02:38 PM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Deeman3
02-12-2008, 03:03 PM
You know, Wolfie, with all this stuff up for debate, prosecution or whatever, our great leaders, both North and South, Democratic and Republican have focued on the real threat to western civilization, Roger Clemon's use of steroids or human growth hormons. They are fighting the brave fight to name 22 more buildings after Charles Rangel, (41 at $5 million a pop was not enough), and how to respond to the increasing risk of diet cola to people's weight loss programs.

Is it any wonder we get exactly what we deserve in government? We see voters on Jaywalking who really do represent the knowledge base of the average American.

This will make some call me elitist but it would seem if you can't name the three branches of government, the house speaker or locate Florida on a map, you might not deserve the priviledge of voting.

Yes, it's off topic but I just saw a guy on TV that said he was a Democrat that did not know who was running but intended to vote when he finds out! Yes, I'm sure there are Republicans out there not much more aware. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Should we do enny, meany, mighty, moe in place of an election?