Too Little Planning, Too Few Troops

The NY Times gets ahold of a non-classified 2005 RAND study about the US effort in post-war Iraq:

After 18 months of research, RAND submitted a report in the summer of 2005 called “Rebuilding Iraq.” RAND researchers provided an unclassified version of the report along with a secret one, hoping that its publication would contribute to the public debate on how to prepare for future conflicts.

But the study’s wide-ranging critique of the White House, the Defense Department and other government agencies was a concern for Army generals, and the Army has sought to keep the report under lock and key.

A review of the lengthy report — a draft of which was obtained by The New York Times — shows that it identified problems with nearly every organization that had a role in planning the war. That assessment parallels the verdicts of numerous former officials and independent analysts.

The study chided President Bush — and by implication Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who served as national security adviser when the war was planned — as having failed to resolve differences among rival agencies. “Throughout the planning process, tensions between the Defense Department and the State Department were never mediated by the president or his staff,” it said.

The Defense Department led by Donald H. Rumsfeld was given the lead in overseeing the postwar period in Iraq despite its “lack of capacity for civilian reconstruction planning and execution.”

The State Department led by Colin L. Powell produced a voluminous study on the future of Iraq that identified important issues but was of “uneven quality” and “did not constitute an actionable plan.”

Gen. Tommy R. Franks, whose Central Command oversaw the military operation in Iraq, had a “fundamental misunderstanding” of what the military needed to do to secure postwar Iraq, the study said.

This is troubling:

One serious problem the study described was the Bush administration’s assumption that the reconstruction requirements would be minimal. There was also little incentive to challenge that assumption, the report said.

“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,” it said. “Any serious discussion of the costs and challenges of reconstruction might undermine efforts to build that support.”

Even paranoids have real enemies and even pessimists have valid objections.

Too few troops to provide security or seal the border:

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. 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. That task would have been better carried out, ideally, by military police or, acceptably, by light infantry trained in urban combat.”

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. Problems persisted during the occupation. In the months that followed, the report said, there were “significant tensions, most commonly between the civilian and military arms of the occupation.”

The poor planning had “the inadvertent effort of strengthening the insurgency,” 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.

As to why this was not published, the official story is that the Army was not satisified; the unofficial spin was that the Army generals did not want to antagonize Rumsfeld.  That strikes me as too pat - a report that also criticizes the White House and the State Dept really does stray from the initial assignment, which was to help the Army assess out how to improve its own conduct.

 

Comments

[Sue]

For the 2nd time, Hannity has had Luntz ask his democratic focus group to name one thing Obama has accomplished. For the 2nd time, being elected senator, being a black man, great speech, top the list of his accomplishments.

One guy actually said he makes great speeches but has no substance in them. I am glad to know some democrats are paying attention and aren't lulled with his flowery prose.

[Sue]

I had a great idea. Since Hillary is boycotting the peacock, why not challenge Obama to a debate...on Fox. He really doesn't have any substance. A Chris Wallace, Brit Hume panel, asking substance questions and following up when they try to spin out of it, might just be the ticket she needs.

[clarice]

Sue, I'd rather they didn't catch on to O until they're stuck with him.

[MayBee]

clarice.

I don't even know what to say about that.

[MayBee]

To be honest, I don't know that I could have named many major prior accomplishments of W during the prior election besides 'elected Gov of Texas' and 'reached across the aisle'.
But then, in the 2000 primaries I was pulling for McCain.

[MayBee]

You know who I was thinking about the other day for no reason? Rod Paige. I really feel sorry for him. He was a man of accomplishment and ideas, and the Dems adopting No Child Left Behind as one of their anti-Bush mantras is one of the clearest demonstrations (besides their behavior toward the wars) of their bad faith.
Anyway, I hope he is happy somewhere and not destroyed. And I hope some Kennedy isn't made Secretary of Education (not that we should have such a thing in the first place).

[Ann]

Sue,

Wouldn't it be ironic if Hillary asked Fox to deliver a debate showing how racists Fox is in showing Obama as a marshmallow. How do you say it...Two birds with one stone!

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

It might be too late already. No matter how they get rid of him they're going to damage black turnout. The VP slot is the only route open that won't drive blacks away.

I don't know if I'm watching Dean's Revenge or pro wrestling.

[clarice]

I think you're right Rick.Watching the Luntz focus group (Remember, my friend always warns me when I can't believe what people think--one-half the people have IQ's under 100)--I am struck by how little concern most of the group had for the notion that the DNC devised the rules and all candidates had a right to rely on those rules (and rulings) and simply yelling "every vote should count" is fundamentally unfair.

[Other Tom]

I believe strongly that it is indeed too late for Hillary. And if she gets it by any means that doesn't pass the smell test, I question whether Obama would take the VP offer (who in his right mind would take that job with Bubba in the WH?).

And I have at least some doubt that mere inspiration will be enough to win for Obama in November--it seems to me that the kind of scrutiny we're just beginning to see now is going to harm him quite a bit.

But for the time being, I am focused like a laser on seeing Hillary lose.

[Other Tom]

I'm particularly enjoying some of the revelations about the pure hatred between the Clintons and the Gores. My guess is that Fat Albert is just waiting for the moment when his endorsement will cause the most pain. Who can blame him?

[clarice]

Glad to hear you say those things OT--You're not an easy sell..(Not that I think Rick, for example, is %^) )

[Other Tom]

Just lifted this from The Campaign Spot:

"This is disturbing news on the taxation front. The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore says Obama’s tax plan would add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax. In other words, Sen. Obama is a very-high-tax candidate. Whether Wall Street has fully discounted this, I have no idea. Probably not yet. But somebody in the investor class ought to be thinking about it, because it’s not good."

I'd say that "not good" is a bit of an understatement. Does he seriously think that raising the cap gains rate to 28% would increase revenue?

Check out the RCP polls for VA and MD. The loathsome shrew is down by more than 20 in each. Clarice, what's that symbol you used in discussing Rick. Should he be insulted?

[Rick Ballard]

I still think Gore likes the Clintons much more than does Dean. Sort of a deeped seated disgust and contempt versus white hot hate.

[clarice]

It's a goofy clown smile, OT.

Now OT, we can discuss why Obama is bad After he knocks out the RW.

[clarice]

Rick--I hope you and PUK aren't up to your ususal--that little write in campaign to Gore, encouraging him to run.Tsk

[glasater]

Boy, that's shocking. Why would anyone short a mercantilist state dependent upon the slave labor of an aging and declining population which invests in T-bills with a less than 4% yield rather than in its own infrastructure?
Rick--That is such a true statement--it's scary:-)

I got out my tin foil over the Blackberry deal because of what Sec Gates said during questioning before congress over keeping some of the older technology--"just in case".

With cables getting cut and Blackberries going down--it just seemed that maybe some sort of test run was going on to shut down technology in some areas.

[section9]

Why now? Why dig up this useless old chestnut?

Why, the NYT found out that Condi Rice and Tommy Franks most certainly are on John McCain's short list. Along with Fred, Pence, and the other Usual Suspects.

This is also concurrent with Colin's opportunistic jobseeking in an Obambi Administration. He wants to be the "Cabinet Republican".

On a related note, since we are talking about the Obama Campaign For Christ; I'm betting the Shrew rises from the dead to hold onto Texas and Ohio, She'll take this thing to the Convention for a bloody, drawn-out Rules Fight. Barack Hussein Empty Suit will be taken down!

[RichatUF]

glasater-

PowerShares has an UltraShort China ETF which started trading in November 2007. Following the elite press, the latest being that difficult-to-follow WB report, investing in China should come with big, red, flashing warning signs. Even Buffett bailed on PetroChina last year.

...it just seemed that maybe some sort of test run...

I'm always game for a good yarn, but not with the Blackberry. Now on the other hand, I haven't heard much from Joe Wilson recently: wonder if he got some diving gear and some cable cutters for a swimming trip to the Suez.

[Other Tom]

That's a very lovely scenario, Section9 (are you any relation to Section 8?). A nice recipe would be Clinton screws Obama out of the nomination, he turns down the VP slot, and McCain picks either Michael Steele or J.C. Watts. Now wouldn't that be a hoot?

I have always understood that there is absolutely no limit to the Clintons' ambition, and no principle of any kind will be permitted to thwart it. Bubba's gratuitous remark about Jesse Jackson in South Carolina, and the Hillary campaign's cultivation of the notion that Hispanics don't vote for blacks, are just the tip of the iceberg. It's essential to the health of the nation that they not succeed.

Oust them. Run them out of town. As the Motor City Hitman would say, destruct and destroy.

[TVPslot]

UF not USF. I guess we don't need to worry about gang corpses. Rice, she's a fridge, which means a member of the 1st United Exclusionary African Church of the Obamasiah in America. Powell's wife is supposed to be part of the alcoholic 1st United Exclusionary African Church of the Obamasiah in America; not that these would use.

Don't worry, Con yers is solving all the spy shit in Tampa.

[Elliott]

I've been wondering about the location of the super delegates ever since I saw this bit from the Telegraph article proclaiming "panic" in the Clinton camp a couple days ago:

"[Obama's} saying [to super delegates]: 'Hey, I won your state and I won your congressional district, why are you supporting her?'" a Democrat strategist revealed.

At 2008 Democratic Convention Watch, I have found a list of super delegates by state (and there's a super delegate endorsement list, too). While the site doesn't have the total number of super delegates from Maryland or Massachusetts, based on DemCon Watch's numbers it looks like, should Obama win Hawaii, Maryland, Virginia, Wisconsin, and DC, his states and territories would have 156 unpledged super delegates (plus those in Maryland).

Clinton's states and territories, meanwhile, appear to have 82 (plus however many are in Massachusetts and not counting the 32 super delegates from Florida and Michigan who are set to be excluded). At present there appear to be 54 unpledged in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

It looks like the Clintons are going to have a tough road to hoe when it comes to the super delegates.

[Elliott]

I should have described the super delegates as "uncommitted" rather than "unpledged" in the post above.

[kim]

It must be hell to be a Democrat and be coming to the realization that the embodiment of your dreams is a naif and the embodiment of your hopes is a Borgia.
======================

[Aaron]

I would caution people on counting China down and out. It still has many advantages to keep growth going:

1. its own market
2. it exports to the world now, not just the USA.
3. its industrial base is now very mature. you try buying stuff from Vietnam instead and you'll find all the parts have to be imported from China.
4. The workers have been improving their skill sets in China.

Don't discount points 3 & 4.

[cathyf]

China is going to be interesting (India, too -- together China and India make up 3/8ths of the population of the world.)

I read recently an interesting description of China: it is a first-world country of 200 million people co-located with a third-world country of 1 billion people. Like Aaron says in point #1 -- don't underestimate the relationship between the two "countries". Just to construct a numerical example: suppose that of the 1 billion 3rd-world Chinese, 400 million of them are supplying the domestic market, 600 million the export markets. Rising wealth causes 100 million (just 10%) of the 3rd-world Chinese to move into the 1st-world Chinese economic class. Ok, so now the domestic market is 300 million, and they require 600 million 3rd-world Chinese to supply them. Which means that there are only 300 million 3rd-world Chinese left for the export market. The point is that every Chinese person who stops being impoverished "counts" multiple times -- once as leaving the impoverished class, once when joining the middle class, and once as a new consumer of the output of multiple impoverished workers.

As individual Chinese become richer, they become competitors for buying consumer goods. I predict the first thing to go will be Happy Meal toys. I mean think about it -- how insane is it to ship 5-cent toys across an ocean? As soon as the Chinese get to be a bit richer, they are going to take their kids to McDonalds, and so they are going to use up every toy that their domestic producers can produce, and bid up the price, so it is going to be prohibitively expensive to ship them across oceans.

[steveaz]

Guys! Did history begin with the second Bush administration?

I mean, didn't Clinton's Sec. of Defense contribute anything to the Iraq war plan? If so, what?

Could it be that Clinton's contribution has slipped down the memory hole? Or did he not contribute to the plan?

Given all the talk about "regime-change" during the Clinton years, I find it very suspicious that every media critique of OIF's planning ignores Clinton's eight long years at the helm of our military.

While we're at it, what did Madelaine Allbright contribute? Anything? Nothing?

Gee whiz! What the hell were those people doing for eight years?

[ROA]

While not specifically about Iraq, the following is probably indicative of what military planners were doing prior to 2001:

In Bosnia 1992:

US military said it would take 50,000 troops to secure a 30 mile perimeter around Sarajevo airport for a humanitarian airlift. Airlift was accomplished with 1,000 Canadian and French troops

Barry McCaffrey told Congress it would take 400,000 troops to enforce a cease-fire between Bosnians and Serbs.

Told US planners it would take 300,000 troops to support humanitarian land corridors in Bosnia.

Colin Powell opposed any US role in delivering humanitarian aid or enforcing no-fly zones over Bosnia.

In Rwanda:

“Midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials”

“A military that wants to go nowhere to do anything – or let go of their toys so someone else can do it. A White House cowed by the brass (and we are to give lessons on how the armed forces take orders from civilians?)”

Above information is from Samantha Power’s book “A Problem From Hell”

[kim]

Somewhat off-topic, but since when did I care; Jim Lehrer has an interesting interview of Mukasey.
===========================

[davod]

I think you can place a large part of the escallation at the door of those who declared we were occupiers.

As I recall it was Powell and State who pushed the "Its an occupatione" theme. Now let me see. How would I feel after being told I had been liberated from the evils of Sadaams regime by the Coalition only to wake up one morning to find out that what Al Jazzera was saying was true, the infidels were occupiers not liberators.

[davod]

I think you can place a large part of the escallation at the door of those who declared we were occupiers.

As I recall it was Powell and State who pushed the "Its an occupatione" theme. Now let me see. How would I feel after being told I had been liberated from the evils of Sadaams regime by the Coalition only to wake up one morning to find out that what Al Jazzera was saying was true, the infidels were occupiers not liberators.

[kim]

What are the chances Obama likes Powell, and Armitage? Keep hope alive.
=======================

[Searching for cat care information]

Being ME of course, I feel guilty to be 'abandoning' any of them. From the babies who were so happy to get out of the cage, to Louie, who I know will be happier in a one cat household. I feel like I'm letting them down somehow. On the other hand, Alan and I are not happy with living with all this feline fighting and peeing, the endless housework to keep the hairballs down to the size of baseballs, and the five litter boxes we clean twice daily. We need to be happy too. Or yours truly will end up once again...