New Strategy in Postwar Iraq (neo-con delusions debunked)

[Barrett808]

Washington - In the face of growing violence against American forces in Iraq, the Bush administration has been forced to dramatically rethink its approach to stabilization, speeding up plans to hand power to Iraqis and adopting tough military tactics to clear the way for U.S. troops to start coming home.

The danger on the ground is so worrisome that military commanders are considering bringing back units of the old Iraqi army to provide security, a move getting a wary reappraisal by Pentagon policy makers who scrapped an earlier plan to use Iraqi soldiers for such duties, several administration sources said.

Amid the recent shifts, the Bush administration has defended its post-war planning. It stresses that the vast majority of Iraq is safe and stable, and that attacks that have killed more than 175 troops since Bush declared an end to major combat are not a "strategic threat" that could drive the United States out of Iraq.

One official who was involved in the post-war planning argued that many of the administration's key assumptions have come to pass in Iraq, including the prediction by Vice President Dick Cheney that U.S. forces would be "greeted as liberators."

"How dare anyone say that we were not?" said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I've been to the north . They threw flowers on us. Let's be fair, we were greeted as liberators and we still are. That is a bum rap."

Several sources who were briefed on U.S. occupation strategy strongly dispute that assessment. They argue that the United States finds itself at a critical turning point in Iraq - between the hope for greater stability and the danger of nation-rending violence - in part because senior policy planners at the Pentagon and elsewhere underestimated just how difficult stabilizing Iraq would be.

(more)

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wopent233557302nov24,0,6621578.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines

[Neutrino]

1. Custer's Last Stand (with Iraqi characteristics)

Chaos Theory--works every time. sigh.

[J B]

2. Let me guess. The ones who threw flowers, were Kurds

"Saddam's own people." Riiiiight.

[saigon68]

7. NAH IT WAS THE "KIDS" IN MOSUL

Who blasted the crap out of those 2 guys in the white Ford Explorer, stripped them of their weapons, and other valuables and left them bleed to Death in the Street.

THAT GROUP FROM MOSUL

[Ernesto]

8. Welllll....

Who the fuck were those "kids" that "nickel & dimed" this and other US Marines around Danang in '67. My friends got med-evaced but I guess their parents didn't miss them cause it was "just kids" who did them in..... My guess is that those Marines are still dead after all these years even if it was "just kids".

[54anickel]

3. Article does decent job of pointing out lack of planning.

All these assumptions. The last line in article really gets me:

But, Malley warned, "You better do it right this time because there may not be a next time."

MAY not! Cripes, Bush I the Bush II. Does anyone honestly think there will be a 3rd time at bat!

Other assumptions, not really news here but good to see it exposed again:


"They never assumed there would be organized resistance. They just assumed this was a house of cards that would collapse ... They saw what they wanted to see," said Loren Thompson, a frequent Pentagon adviser who was briefed on the reconstruction planning. "What we are seeing today is a consequence of an occupation strategy that was not really realistic."

Even some who were involved in the planning acknowledge they did not predict the kind of organized, well-funded insurgency now confronting U.S. troops. "When people told us we would be met by celebration, ... I don't think we were intoxicated by it but it just sort of made sense," said retired Gen. John Keane, the Army's vice chief of staff during the war.

[Neutrino]

4. For the Record--

"Tactics" are binomials and can shift depending upon the
scenario outcomes

"Strategies are binary, and don't change in the short term
unless the planning is seriously flawed.

[trapper914]

5. I think it's funny

"How dare anyone say that we were not?" said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I've been to the north . They threw flowers on us. Let's be fair, we were greeted as liberators and we still are. That is a bum rap."

He/she couldn't publicly say that?

Besides, in the limited cases where Iraqis cheered their invaders, one though always came to mind. They cheered Saddam too...they just didn't mean it.

[teryang]

6. The press coverage was edited to create

...a false impression from the start. This was Cheney and the neo-con's bandwagon effect which was supposed to be inspired by their wrongful leadership. Scenes of friendly crowds from the north (Kurds) were shown interspersed with the scene of Chalabi's well fed thugs pulling down the statue of Saddam in Baghdad (over and over again ad nauseum). A block and a half away, soldiers were still shooting at Americans while residents cursed at them.

A day or two before, during the preliminary bloody incursion into the city, one M-1 tank and a few other vehicles took hits and burned. Within hours scenes of Iraqis jumping up and down cheering these losses were viewed before the censors blinders closed in on all broadcasting which contradicted the fairy tales coming from the Pentagon and our war mongering junta.

It wasn't true then and it isn't true now. The fact that a "senior official" who is too ashamed to identify himself tries to bolster the lies at this stage is just typical of the mendacity that has marked this regime from the start. It's either Cheney or Perle.