How the Pentagon forgot about running Iraq.

[jbfam4]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090852/
Occupational Hazards
How the Pentagon forgot about running Iraq.
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Thursday, Nov. 6, 2003, at 9:44 AM PT



It is not at all surprising that we've run into trouble over there. The difficulties we have faced, from looting to the lack of viable institutions, were largely to be expected from a devastated post-totalitarian society in a part of the world overwhelmingly hostile to the United States and its interests. What is surprising—amazing, in fact—is how unprepared we were for these problems. Much of the discussion in the postwar period was focused on the question of where those weapons of mass destruction went. An even more important question is how the Bush administration failed to prepare for what it knew was coming. How did the world's greatest military power plan the invasion of a country without also planning its occupation?

David Rieff's Nov. 2 article in the New York Times Magazine offers pieces of an answer. The neoconservative Iraq hawks inside the Pentagon—Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith—thought our troops would be welcomed as liberators and that the Iraqi National Congress could run the country for us (a view Gideon Rose demolished in Slate back in April). Wolfowitz, in particular, was known for his view that fixing Iraq would provoke a reverse-domino effect of democratization throughout the Middle East. Those who bought into this wishful thinking didn't want to hear about the potential problems.


The hawks' big mistake was not in thinking that optimistic scenario might be borne out. Their mistake—especially stunning because the Pentagon is essentially a planning agency—was not preparing for alternate scenarios that were, at the very least, equally likely. The neoconservative architects of the invasion seem not to have, at any point, seriously engaged the question, "What if things do not go the way we hope they will?" What if the Iraqis are glad to be rid of Saddam but not glad to have the Marines as neighbors? What if Ahmad Chalabi turns out not to be the next Vaclav Havel? The Pentagon spends hundreds of millions of dollars staging elaborate war games to help anticipate unexpected turns in battle. Somehow, it neglected to game out the postwar peace.


Back during the 2000 campaign, George Will and others argued that presidential intelligence didn't matter. This notion was reinforced after Sept. 11, when it became fashionable to argue that Bush's "moral clarity" was preferable to the ability to comprehend many sides of a complicated issue. In fact, presidential intelligence does matter. The intellectual qualities Bush lacks—historical knowledge, interest in the details of policy, and substantive (as opposed to political) judgment—might well have prevented the quagmire we're facing in Iraq right now. A more engaged president—one who understood, for instance, the difference between the Sunnis and the Shiites—surely would have asked about Plan B.

[StephNW4Clark]

1. This is the problem - the Pentagon isn't supposed to be running Iraq.

It's not the military's role in international affairs to run countries or engage in nation-building and that's where the Bush administration is so wrong. It's the State Department and the United Nations and other multi-lateral organizations like NATO that have the experience and resources to dedicate to nation-building.

Soldier have and never should have the burden of not only keeping a country secure but also building schools and other public institutions. And by relying on Halliburton et al to rebuild nations, the Pentagon has pigeon-holed itself into an untenable corner.

[asjr]

2. iraq

It isn't a question of why the Pentagon is running Iraq. I just think it is further proof that GW is a figurehead. He doesn't run anything but his mouth. And when he does that most times it is reading what his speechwriters have written. We all know he can't speak off the cuff without covering up by being snippy and rude to anyone who asks a question. He doesn't do squat except what his handlers want done. And this mess of Wilson/Plame question is another example. Yes, he says he wants to get to the bottom of it, but to him it doesn't matter. I hope this doesn't get shelved because it, to my eye, is an impeachable offense. Hell, he is an impeachable offense.

[PATRICK]

3. but also

They don't care how it rturned out really so long as control and oil were acheived. The window dressing of idealism for some of the dweebs on the PNAC council could always be mitigated or rationalized, an obstinate dream to drag in more and more props for the central goal- our occupation of the world's oil supply and thus the world economy and the restive rivalries of the world.

I notice who reallly is suffering from this "fiasco" and it isn't big oil, the GOP, Carlyle, Bushco and the anti-democratic cartel. In WWII we had to butcher and bomb our way into rightist strongholds to first stop and then rebuild after their ruinous onslaught against humankind.
This article has the situation in the wrong scale and the ordinary schmucks so far are doing all the dying and going broke with increasing loss of rights and everything.

[KoKo]

4. Blaming all this on "Ivory Tower, Intellectual PNAC'ers" doesn't answer

all the questions, instead it makes them sound sadly noble in their quest for their fantasy fulfillment.

The hookup of the PNAC'ers, with failed former politico CEO's and a Religious Zealot Puppet President is the "witches brew" that needs to be discussed honestly.