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.