Iraq and post-war planning revisited

Overview

I will eventually write about the latest NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) on Iraq, but before that, I will address a related topic, namely planning for the post-war phase in Iraq. I have written extensively on this subject (go to the Cosmic Wheel Index, main heading "Iraq," subheading "Planning for the Post-war Period"), and recent events make the topic highly relevant once again. It is relevant because the utter disaster that was and still is the post-war planning is a significant reason why the Iraq war has increased terrorism and decreased our safety.

One of those "recent events" was the press confrence on September 26, 2006, with Bush and Afghan president Karzai. For now I will focus on the following exchange:

Q: Thank you, sir. Even after hearing that one of the major conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate in April was that the Iraq war has fueled terror growth around the world, why have you continued to say that the Iraq war has made this country safer?

*******

PRESIDENT BUSH: I, of course, read the key judgments on the NIE. I agree with their conclusion that because of our successes against the leadership of al Qaeda, the enemy is becoming more diffuse and independent. I'm not surprised the enemy is exploiting the situation in Iraq and using it as a propaganda tool to try to recruit more people to their -- to their murderous ways.

Some people have guessed what's in the report and have concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree. I think it's naive. I think it's a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe.

(emphasis added).

Much more than a mere recruiting tool

Oh, George, Iraq has become so much more than a mere recruiting tool for terrorists. It has for some time been the the best possible training ground, and we created it for them and continue to fund and operate it.

On November 30, 2005, I wrote a quick analysis of George's "Victory in Iraq" speech of that date, in which I made the following observations:

Bush also said that Iraq would not become another Afghanistan. News flash for you, George: in some ways Iraq is Afghanistan of the past. Many Al Qaeda leaders learned and honed their violent skills in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. It was a real-life combat training ground. Under the Taliban, Afghanistan was still a training ground, but there was no actual combat. Iraq is now the real-life combat training ground. Terrorists are learning and honing skills in a way that did not exist after the Soviets left Afghanistan and before we invaded Iraq. Now the terrorists do not have to go to the trouble and expense of supporting a regime like the Taliban because we are providing the training ground for free.

Of course, as established in Brent Scowcroft speaks out--Part 1, others with far more expertise than me had reached that same conclusion in January and February of 2005. One of those experts was Porter Goss, George 's personal pick to be CIA Director.

Yet another person with inside knowledge says the post-war planning was horrible.

So what does post-war planning have to do with an increase in terrorism? The short answer is that if the planning had been adequate, the security situation might have been better, the people might have been happier, the borders might have been better controlled, and maybe Iraq would not have turned into the mess it is today.

Notice that I said "might" a lot. Before the war, I thought there was little chance at best that Iraq would not turn into such a mess, and I have always thought that, and that was one of the main reasons I was always against the Iraq war. Be that as it may, the only chance there was of keeping Iraq from turning into a mess was for the post-war phase to be successful. And the only chance of that happening was for there to be really good planning.

Instead, the level of planning did not even rise to the level of cluster f**k.

Think I'm wrong? Think again. Read all the links mentioned above in the Cosmic Wheel Index. Several books have also been written about this topic.

And another voice recently reiterated this declaration in plain, straightforward terms.

His name is Paul Eaton. As in retired Army Major General Paul Eaton. As in the U.S. officer who was in charge of training the Iraqi military and police from 2003-2004. As in an American general who was on the ground in Iraq for the first months of the post-war period and has firsthand, personal knowledge of what happened.

Eaton was interviewed by Keith Olbermann on September 25, 2006, and he discussed the planning for "Phase IV," which is the post-hostility operations phase.

OLBERMANN: I know you were not at that hearing today to talk about the findings from the National Intelligence Estimate, but if its primary conclusion is that the war in Iraq has created a new generation of Islamic radicalism, and that the terror threat has increased, how would you connect that with the criticisms that you and the others raised today?

EATON: Keith, the majority of us go back to Phase 4 planning. It was amateurish. It was—it really set the stage for where we are today. The secretary of defense, on his agenda, to go in with a minimalist approach to conduct the war, viewed it only as the Phase 3, the full combat ops.

We had no problem and expected no problem in reducing the Saddam threat. The real issue in everybody‘s mind was Phase 4. We went in on the cheap, we went in with too many assumptions that failed, and we did not have enough soldiers on the ground to do what any government really owes the governed, and that is security.

(emphasis added). And just a reminder...the official campaign planning doctrine in place at the start of the Iraq war expressly holds two people responsible for Phase IV planning--and that would be George and Rumskull.

Bush and funerals revisited

Back on September 15, I heard Keith Olbermann's commentary on 9-11 (transcript here and video here--under "Keith Olbermann's Special Commentaries") for the first time. Although Olbermann's commentary was on 9-11, it reminded me of another way in which Bush has failed this country. More specifically, it reminded me of how Bush has not just failed, but refused to honor those who have died in the service of this country, in a war that he ordered.

That prompted me to read what I had written about this topic, and then, about this time last night, I came across this article which ran in today's Washington Post. The article discussed how Bush deals with the loss of soldiers in Iraq.

For anyone [and I know there is at least one ;-) ] who thinks I got little fired up in Well, Mr. President, here's what I think..., look out, because this topic really gets me riled up.

Back in October 2004, I wrote a series about Bush not attending even one military or memorial service for anyone military personnel killed in Iraq. Anyone wanting to read the entire series can find the links at the Cosmic Wheel Index. Go the the main heading of "Bush, George W." and then the sub-heading of "Funerals and honoring the fallen." If you want to read the whole series, first read this post, which is a synopsis (with links).

When I wrote the series in October 2004, Bush had not attended one funeral or memorial service for a soldier killed in Iraq. Occasionally, I have revisited the matter since then, and I have always stated that, to my knowledge, Bush still had not attended one funeral or memorial service for a soldier killed in Iraq. And then I read this from the Washington Post article bearing today's date:

While he pays tribute to those who have fallen, the president strives to show resolve and avoid displays that might be seen as weak or doubting. His refusal to attend military funerals, while taking long Texas vacations and extended bicycle rides, strikes some critics as callous indifference.

*******

Aides say that Bush does not attend military funerals because the presidential entourage would disrupt solemn events...

So, I can now say that to this day, Bush still has not attended one funeral or memorial service for a soldier killed in Iraq. AND he still refuses to do so.

And I still say "un-freaking-believable."

The Washington Post article showed that the Bush apologists are still offering some of the same defenses as in October 2004. For instance, the desire not to disrupt solemn events was addressed in Defense 7: Protect the privacy of the families. The article also focused on how Bush meets privately with families and writes letters to them. Well, if you want some details on that, read Defense 3: Bush writes letters and visits with families. Two things have changed since I wrote that post. First, as described in the Washington Post article, Bush met with a widow who was definitely anti-Bush, meaning that now not every family is vetted to make sure they support Bush. Second, since October 2004, there is a far greater number of families with whom Bush has not met. As detailed in Defense 3, as of October 11, 2004, there had been 437 military deaths in Iraq, and Bush had met with the families of 43 of them. That's 9.8%. That means that Bush had not met with 395 families. According to this site, to date there have been 2703 military deaths in Iraq, and the Washington Post article says that Bush has met with the families of 336 of those soldiers. That means there are 2367 families with whom he has not met. I guess I should give him credit for increasing his percentage to 12.4%. And for anyone who wants to argue that there is no way Bush could meet with every family, consider two things. First, that is a valid point, but it is also irrelevant because of the claim that Bush does not attend funerals because if he attended one, he would have to attend all in order not to show favoritism (see discussion in Defense 2: Bush can't show favoritism and must keep a balance). By not meeting with all of those 2703 families, no one can defend Bush's refusal to attend even one funeral or memorial service by claiming that he has met with 12.4% of them. As for the letters, just read Defense 3. I can only hope that the practice of sending a two-sentence letter with a stamped signature has been discontinued.

And then the Washington Post article mentioned Bush's treatment of 9-11 casualties. According to the article, "Bush is less reticent about public displays of grief for victims of Sept. 11." As I detailed in Defense 4: Blame It on Clinton, Bush has used the deaths of 9-11 for political ends, especially during the 2004 campaign. This was done in almost complete disregard for those families, and, indeed, members of Bush's team made it clear such use and disregard was aimed at swaying voters. This is precisely the sort of conduct Bush and his team claimed Clinton did, and when Clinton's actions are cited as a justification for Bush not attending a single funeral or memorial service, the hypocrisy is palpable.

I will also remind everyone that while Bush would not go to even one funeral or memorial service, he was more than happy to use the troops to help his campaign.

The Washington Post article also gave a reason why Bush refuses to attend funerals for the fallen, and--gee, here's a surprise--it is political in nature:

[A Bush adviser said,] "Sending troops into harm's way, that's something that weighs on him."

If he does not show that publicly, it's in keeping with a White House practice of not drawing attention to the mounting costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have killed more than 3,000 U.S. troops and tens of thousands of civilians. Advisers worry that sending the wrong signal would further sap public will and embolden the enemy and Bush's critics. Aides say that Bush does not attend military funerals because the presidential entourage would disrupt solemn events and that, out of respect, the media have been banned from photographing coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base. But they also know it would draw unwelcome attention to the price of the president's policies.

(emphasis added). It's always about image and appearances, isn't it?

By the way, I addressed the Dover ban in Defense 7: Protect the privacy of the families.

Keep in mind that my complaint is that Bush has not just failed, but refused to attend even one funeral or memorial service. Also keep in mind that I have already spelled out what Bush could have done and could still do to address my complaint (see What could have been done).

The Washington Post article included these choice words from Bush:

"It's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say," Bush said last year when Sheehan began her protest. "But it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life. . . . I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live and will do so."

Yeah, well I got news for you, pal. Part of your life is being the President of the United States, and that carries with it many duties--including moral ones. And if you are going to so boldly order a war and send American troops to be killed, those duties include publicly accepting the consequences and responsibility for those orders.

As far as I am concerned, Bush's failure and refusal to attend even one funeral or memorial service for a soldier killed in Iraq is inexcusable and disgraceful.

Will Rogers's description of the Dems is still true.

The Democrats in Congress still don't have a clue about how to do things. Last night on "Countdown" Keith Olbermann was interviewing Dana Milbank of the Washington Post. Regarding the (now over) congressional clash over torture/interrogation/Geneva conventions legislation, Milbank noted that in the House "The Democrats actually had the votes to kill (the White House's) proposal and get the McCain version through, but two of the Democrats were next door giving a press conference on Medicare." In the overall public political PR landscape right now, Medicare is not even on the radar. Moreover, any effort to put it there is not a good move. Why? There are at least four reasons. 1) It has not been on the radar for a long time, and there is not enough time before November to put it there. 2) The Republicans have not screwed the pooch on Medicare anywhere near as badly as they have on anything and everything connected with Iraq. 3) It (Medicare) has nothing to do with any of the corruption scandals in the GOP. 4) Overall, Medicare is NOT the issue on which the Republicans are most vulnerable. And yet, when the House Democrats were presented with a chance to deal Bush a major defeat on a politically timely and relevant issue, they could not because two of them decided it was more important to have a press conference on Medicare. Would the Republicans have allowed such action by members of their party? Not just "no," but "hell, no." They would have been organized enough to make sure that their members were not off on some irrelevant errand.

Yes, I know there is a chance the legislation would not have made it to a vote. Yes, I know that now a "deal" is in place on the legislation. Both of those facts are beside the point. The point is that the Democrats have apparently learned nothing from the last two election cycles. They apparently have not learned that they cannot sit around and do nothing and expect that voters have become so disgusted with Republicans that they (the voters) will now vote for Democrats.

Well, Mr. President, here's what I think...

I'll begin this post with a story about my first college band director. When Central Expressway in Dallas first opened, there was a parade to mark the occasion. Leading the parade was the SMU Mustang Band. Just as the parade started, a police car zoomed to the front and blocked the band. The officer approached the band director and asked if anyone had a parade permit. The director answered "no" and was informed that the parade would not continue. The director looked at the officer and asked, "What would you do if I called you a son-of-a-bitch? Would you arrest me?" The officer said, "Yes, I believe I would." The director then asked, "Well, if I just thought you were a son-of-a-bitch could you do anything?" The officer said, "No, sir." And immediately the director said, "Fine. I think you're a son-of-a-bitch!"

He did get arrested.

As I am sure everyone knows by now, last Friday our Fearless Leader held a press conference in which the first question was as follows:

Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?

I think it is fair to say that Bush responded with a tirade, but you can watch the video and decide for yourself. In any event, part of his answer included the following:

It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective, Terry.

(emphasis added).

Wow.

Obvious godless freedom-haters such as myself have been told recently by George, Big Dick, and Rumskull that since we dare to criticize the administration’s Iraq policy (which is exactly what these days?), we are appeasers of the terrorists, and now the Prez his ownself tells us we are not allowed to even think that the administration’s policies are wrong.

Being the ever-consistent Constitutional strict constructionist, I am sure that while Bush would never question the right to say anything, he feels that his “unacceptable” comment is fine since the Constitution says nothing expressly about the freedom to think.

So I guess it is O.K. to say anything you please, but just don’t think about it before you say it. I think ol’ George has got that down pat. Oops-am I now going to be arrested?

And since I am not allowed to think anything negative about Bush, I’ll just come right out and say something I have said many times before: he is a sorry excuse for a leader.

Football quick hits

It's time to get back to semi-regular posting, and I will start with a truly important topic--football.

Yesterday was an exciting day in the NFL. My team for this year, the New York Giants, pulled off an amazing comeback to beat the Eagles in overtime. The Eagles dominated the first 80-85% of the game, and then the Giants scored 17 points in the 4th quarter--including a field goal with 7 seconds left--to tie the game and send it to overtime. Then Eli Manning connected with Plaxico Burress on a long pass for the winning score.

The Sunday night game was a mixed result for me. For those new to this internet party, I have been a Cowboys fan all of my life--but not this year because of the presence of terrell owens (read Kiss my ass, Jerry Jones if you want the details). I wish failure on any team that chooses to have that no class clown on its roster. The Week 1 loss to Jacksonville made me very happy. Last night the Cowboys won, and there are two things that nonetheless gave me some pleasure. Although I have found that I can keep from cheering for the Cowboys, I find it more difficult to keep from rooting against the hated Redskins, especially since I'm a Giants fan this season. So, I can take some pleasure in the Cowboys drilling the Redskins 27-10. I can also smile over the facts that 1) t.o. played poorly (he dropped many passes and failed to score), and 2) he is now injured (broken finger) and will miss 2-4 weeks.

t.o.'s injury means that he will likely miss the game against the Eagles in Philly. My, how convenient for him. I really wanted to see him take the field there. ;-) And by the way, even if t.o. sustains further injuries and does not play again this season, I will remain part of the anti-Cowboys faction. As long as he is on the roster, I will not cheer for the Cowboys.

On to college football...My alma mater, SMU, finally won a game this season with a 45-14 victory over Sam Houston State. This win came after a big loss against Texas Tech and a truly embarassing defeat at the hands of the University of North Texas. I don't mean to belittle UNT in any way. The Mean Green has built a decent Division 1-A program. UNT has had success recently that SMU wishes it had. And UNT kicked our butts. It was sad. So, we get a big win against SHSU, and everything's great, right? Well, SHSU is Division 1-AA, so the fact that we won big does not necessarily mean much. However, I hope that now we are over our customary September swoon and the team will play up to its potential. We play Arkansas State this weekend, and then conference play (CUSA) starts the following week as we go to New Orleans to play Tulane.

I have thoroughly enjoyed seeing my two least favorite (to put it mildly) college teams get their butts kicked the last two weekends. I loved watching ut get thoroughly whipped--at home, no less--by Ohio State. I would rather cheer for t.o. than the longhorns. And then this past Saturday, Michigan went to Notre Dame and crushed the Fighting Irish. Good times. :-)

A personal memoir

This is an unapologetic personal memoir of this date five years ago. It is not intended to be any kind of commentary or analysis.

Yesterday, the Senior Pastor at my church, Paul Goodrich, made a brief statement about the anniversary of 9-11. Rev. Goodrich noted that it is important to focus not so much on what happens in life, but rather on what we do with what happens in life. He said that "God is always working for good in spite of what may be happening around us. And even as those tragic events were occurring some five years ago, God was already at work, working for good. We may not have seen it, but God was working for good in the midst of those utterly tragic events." He asked each of us to ask ourselves if we have continued to work for good after those events. Rev. Goodrich's words spurred me to write what follows.

My mother, Shelia Campbell, wrote the following poem.

DreamBones #3

a voice comes tunneling
between the skyscrapers, and men
hunt down corners
to hide in, hoping the sound
is some new alert and not the last
prelude

children in the park drop
their toys and, looking up,
listen

leaves uncurl their ears
in wonder, making cover
for the terror-stricken

no four horsemen of the apocalypse
no fire, no sword, no cracking
of the earth
just a voice tunneling between
the skyscrapers, a wind moan
amplified, asking
why

© 2005 by Artis Lingua (reprinted by permission)

Although my mother's poetry was not published until 2005, this poem was written in 1976.

My mother's poems were published posthumously. She went through a 13-year ordeal of illness in which literally every day was slightly worse than the one before. That ordeal ended at approximately 5:00 p.m. on September 11, 2001.

My father, sisters, and I all had a similar thought hours after her passing, and many others subsequently expressed it to us without knowing we had already thought it. My mother's soul was ready to leave this world, and she felt she would go to comfort those many souls who were not expecting or ready to leave this world on that fateful day. I fully realize that this might seem biased, but it would have been in keeping with how my mother lived her life. For years she had a sign in her office which read "The joy of a Christian is to know her life serves." She practiced what she preached in that regard, even as her physical body was being inexorably and systematically ravaged.

I do believe, as Rev. Goodrich said, that "God is always working for good in spite of what may be happening around us" because I have seen that and experienced it. And I believe I witnessed it in my mother's physical death on September 11, 2001.