Chief of staff blame unrest in Iraq on poor planning
I see . . . but why's it only on the Rueter's page and nowhere else?
Quote:
U.S. Report Ties Iraq Unrest to Poor Planning
By Charles Aldinger
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A "brutally honest" report prepared for the U.S. military Joint Chiefs of Staff blames post-war unrest in Iraq on hurried, inadequate planning before the invasion, defense officials said on Wednesday.
The classified report on lessons learned in the war says U.S. commanders were so busy preparing to defeat Iraq's military and directing the fight that they were given too little time to properly prepare for "Phase IV" peace, according to the officials.
It also flays planning for so-far fruitless efforts to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The threat from such chemical and biological weapons was cited by President Bush and the Pentagon as a major reason for the invasion.
"It is a brutally honest report," one of the officials, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters. "It shows that the military is self-critical -- not just satisfied with 93 percent effectiveness in combat."
The assessment, first reported in The Washington Times on Wednesday, has not yet been approved by Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the nation's top military officer.
With U.S. troops being killed daily in guerrilla attacks in Iraq and suffering more casualties in the post-war period than in the drive to capture Baghdad, the Bush administration has come under sharp criticism from members of Congress over strategy in the unsettled country.
The Times published excerpts from the report -- which gave high marks for joint war fighting capabilities among U.S. military services and the ability to bomb "time-sensitive" targets -- that were confirmed to Reuters by defense officials familiar with it.
'LIMITED FOCUS'
The newspaper quoted the report as saying, "Phase IV objectives were identified, but the scope of the effort required to continually refine operational plans for defeat of (the) Iraqi military limited the focus on Phase IV," the reconstruction of Iraq.
"Late formation of Department of Defense (Phase IV) organizations limited time available for the development of detailed plans and pre-deployment coordination," it added.
The report, compiled from interviews with senior officers such as now-retired Army Gen. Tommy Franks, who headed the war effort, does not name any individuals for blame.
But it charges that planning for the hunt for weapons of mass destruction was inadequate, especially because the military was not trained for such efforts.
"Weapons of mass destruction elimination and exploitation planning efforts did not occur early enough in the process to allow CentCom (the U.S. Central Command headed by Franks) to effectively execute the mission," the Times quoted the report.
The newspaper said the report, prepared last month, showed that Bush approved the overall war strategy for Iraq in August 2002, eight months before the first bomb was dropped and six months before he asked the U.N. Security Council for a war mandate that he did not receive.
Senior Bush administration officials, including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, have conceded in recent weeks that the administration failed to anticipate the guerrilla war against U.S. troops in Iraq.
The United States currently has about 140,000 troops in Iraq and the deployment has left the American military stretched to fulfill missions around the world.
The U.S. Congressional Budget Office warned in a report on Tuesday that the demands of troop rotations around the world could leave the Defense Department without fresh Army units for Iraq next year unless tours of duty stretch beyond a year.
U.S. Report Ties Iraq Unrest to Poor Planning
By Charles Aldinger
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A "brutally honest" report prepared for the U.S. military Joint Chiefs of Staff blames post-war unrest in Iraq on hurried, inadequate planning before the invasion, defense officials said on Wednesday.
The classified report on lessons learned in the war says U.S. commanders were so busy preparing to defeat Iraq's military and directing the fight that they were given too little time to properly prepare for "Phase IV" peace, according to the officials.
It also flays planning for so-far fruitless efforts to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The threat from such chemical and biological weapons was cited by President Bush and the Pentagon as a major reason for the invasion.
"It is a brutally honest report," one of the officials, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters. "It shows that the military is self-critical -- not just satisfied with 93 percent effectiveness in combat."
The assessment, first reported in The Washington Times on Wednesday, has not yet been approved by Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the nation's top military officer.
With U.S. troops being killed daily in guerrilla attacks in Iraq and suffering more casualties in the post-war period than in the drive to capture Baghdad, the Bush administration has come under sharp criticism from members of Congress over strategy in the unsettled country.
The Times published excerpts from the report -- which gave high marks for joint war fighting capabilities among U.S. military services and the ability to bomb "time-sensitive" targets -- that were confirmed to Reuters by defense officials familiar with it.
'LIMITED FOCUS'
The newspaper quoted the report as saying, "Phase IV objectives were identified, but the scope of the effort required to continually refine operational plans for defeat of (the) Iraqi military limited the focus on Phase IV," the reconstruction of Iraq.
"Late formation of Department of Defense (Phase IV) organizations limited time available for the development of detailed plans and pre-deployment coordination," it added.
The report, compiled from interviews with senior officers such as now-retired Army Gen. Tommy Franks, who headed the war effort, does not name any individuals for blame.
But it charges that planning for the hunt for weapons of mass destruction was inadequate, especially because the military was not trained for such efforts.
"Weapons of mass destruction elimination and exploitation planning efforts did not occur early enough in the process to allow CentCom (the U.S. Central Command headed by Franks) to effectively execute the mission," the Times quoted the report.
The newspaper said the report, prepared last month, showed that Bush approved the overall war strategy for Iraq in August 2002, eight months before the first bomb was dropped and six months before he asked the U.N. Security Council for a war mandate that he did not receive.
Senior Bush administration officials, including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, have conceded in recent weeks that the administration failed to anticipate the guerrilla war against U.S. troops in Iraq.
The United States currently has about 140,000 troops in Iraq and the deployment has left the American military stretched to fulfill missions around the world.
The U.S. Congressional Budget Office warned in a report on Tuesday that the demands of troop rotations around the world could leave the Defense Department without fresh Army units for Iraq next year unless tours of duty stretch beyond a year.
Comments
I can't help but wonder how Wolfowitz failed to anticipate a war of attrition. Seemed like even the most gung-ho proponents of the war were running around saying the aftermath of toppling Hussein would be the hard part.
big shovelfuls.
After the bang up job the UN did providing their own security in Iraq, hired old Bathist spies they had before, I see no reason to think the UN has any ability to operate there in a way that will realize progress.
Originally posted by Scott
**** the UN. The only reason we need them is because too many countries are unwilling to say "**** the UN" and help Iraq out. No doubt France and Germany are pulling the strings scare any potential EU members into not helping without the UN.
After the bang up job the UN did providing their own security in Iraq, hired old Bathist spies they had before, I see no reason to think the UN has any ability to operate there in a way that will realize progress.
well your heroes in the administration disagree with you, they are negotiating now, as to how many steaming piles they are going to have to eat for the U.N. to pull our arrogant asses out of the fire.
my only solace is next november the crew that got is into this mess is going to have have to eat it too.
Originally posted by Scott
**** the U[SA]. The only reason we need them is because too many countries are unwilling to say "**** the U[SA]" and help Iraq out. No doubt France and Germany are pulling the strings scare any potential EU members into not helping without the U[SA].
After the bang up job the U[SA] did providing their own security in Iraq, hired old Bathist spies they had before, I see no reason to think the U[SA] has any ability to operate there in a way that will realize progress.
Wow. Scott's really coming around.
Originally posted by Scott
**** the UN. The only reason we need them is because too many countries are unwilling to say "**** the UN" and help Iraq out.
If only there were some mechanism, perhaps even some group of countries that had all agreed to abide by sets of rules that would require them to help one another out at times like this. They could even send ambassadors to meet regularly. With any luck, and if the member nations did abide by the rules they set out, perhaps the thing would help "maintain international peace and security."
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Scott
**** the UN. The only reason we need them is because too many countries are unwilling to say "**** the UN" and help Iraq out. No doubt France and Germany are pulling the strings scare any potential EU members into not helping without the UN.
Absolutely :-)
And it must be a very sweet time for our politicians too, seeing the Bush-gang f_u_c_k up this job big big time. Talk about sitting by the river and watching the Bush administration float by, face downwards.
After Wolfowitz and Rummie piled on abuse last year, declaring Germany irrelevant and obsolete, you surely can finish this job without our troops, now can't you? And, you always have your proud coalition of the willing - now what great help have your Bulgarian heroes been?
Just seems like the warning after warning that invading Iraq is just going to be the last missing thing that will topple over an already instable situation were not unfounded after all, but of course, the US cannot be bothered to listen to different opinion. "Help Iraq out", my ass.
You want german help, you go to the UN and stop bullying smaller countries around. Else, if you can do without the "weasels", *you* clear this shit up until your arms are brown to the shoulders, it's yours.
According to german media, NATO General Secretary Robertson is trying to sweet Schröder into this quagmire almost weekly now because troop morale is below zero and the US will not be able to keep their presence up for very much longer_ "It will not be very long until those responsible will plea for [european or NATO] help kneeling."
Hey Scott, what about a nice dinner of crow?
Originally posted by segovius
The 'N' in UN is a typo - it is the US who are employing the Ba'athists.
Edit: no, sorry, you're right. The US are employing the mukhabarat who are merely psychopathic mass murderers and experts in brutal torture (ie the same guys Bush was ranting about needing to remove. Can you say 'killed their own people ?') rather than political Ba'athists. Apologies again.
Sedge, to be fair to the US forces, they have made it very clear that the policy is NOT to hire any of the former Mukhabrat elements who have their hands stained..
But I still consider it a dangerous game for the US to play, as the " loyalities " of some of these ex-Baathists must be questionable indeed...
Originally posted by segovius
aqua - you don't get in the mukhabarat unless you've got your hands stained.
It's kind of the price of admission as it were. These guys are selected on that basis.
Point taken..
Originally posted by segovius
aqua - you don't get in the mukhabarat unless you've got your hands stained.
It's kind of the price of admission as it were. These guys are selected on that basis.
and you know this from your own extensive personal experience?
Originally posted by Smircle
Absolutely :-)
And it must be a very sweet time for our politicians too, seeing the Bush-gang f_u_c_k up this job big big time. Talk about sitting by the river and watching the Bush administration float by, face downwards.
After Wolfowitz and Rummie piled on abuse last year, declaring Germany irrelevant and obsolete, you surely can finish this job without our troops, now can't you?
...
Yes we can. Germany can go to hell. They would never offer troops after WWIII so why bother now? "Oh we would do it if only for the UN." Yea right go fsck yourself. And if won a million dollars I'd give you half.
Nice of you start the clock with Rumsfled calling your country old Europe. I seem to remember the german sec' of defense insinuating that Bush is a Nazi. It's rather strange that the grandchildren of [i ]actual Nazis[/i] would call the American president one. But we'll forget that diplomatic blunder and blame everything on the US.
Nope, thought not.
(mind reading off)
You are an incredible specimen, really you are.
Originally posted by Scott
Yes we can. Germany can go to hell. They would never offer troops after WWIII so why bother now? "Oh we would do it if only for the UN." Yea right go fsck yourself. And if won a million dollars I'd give you half.
Nice of you start the clock with Rumsfled calling your country old Europe. I seem to remember the german sec' of defense insinuating that Bush is a Nazi. It's rather strange that the grandchildren of [i ]actual Nazis[/i] would call the American president one. But we'll forget that diplomatic blunder and blame everything on the US.
1) US decides to go to war with Iraq;
2) Finds evidence to fit which the whole world pretty much thinks is garbage;
3) UN says, "If we go to war, it's going to go tits-up. And the evidence is bullshit;"
4) US says, "You are irrelevant;"
5) To cover Tony, US tries to get a UN resolution anyway ... employs OUTRAGEOUS coercion and can still not deliver UN authorisation, because, get this: THE WORLD COMMUNITY DID NOT WANT THIS WAR;
6) US says, "You are irrelevant - **** you" to UN and kicks off the war;
7) US wins. As per 3 above it all goes tits up;
8) It goes so tits up that the US can't handle it;
9) US says, "OK then, in you come everyone. Oh, but we keep control and you can forget about any economic divdend. That's still ours;"
10) World gives US the finger;
11) A verrrrrrrrry US individuals fail to see the bigger picture.
Originally posted by Scott
Yes we can. Germany can go to hell. They would never offer troops after WWIII so why bother now? "Oh we would do it if only for the UN." Yea right go fsck yourself. And if won a million dollars I'd give you half.
Nice of you start the clock with Rumsfled calling your country old Europe. I seem to remember the german sec' of defense insinuating that Bush is a Nazi. It's rather strange that the grandchildren of [i ]actual Nazis[/i] would call the American president one. But we'll forget that diplomatic blunder and blame everything on the US.
just for the record, this is the 'quote' in question:
This was Justice Minister Herta Däubler-Gmelin, "Bush wants to distract attention from his domestic problems. This is a popular method. Hitler also used it."
Furthermore, she denied that that was what was said, and it actually seems this 'quote' was a paraphrase of an interaction between multiple people. During the interaction, her position was misunderstood (and that misunderstanding turned into a quote) so she immediately clarified by insisting that she, too, thought it outrageous to make such a comparison. Regardless, the concocted 'quote' made it into the paper.
So, sorry scott, but either way you are being completely and utterly dishonest.
Originally posted by Scott
Yes we can. Germany can go to hell. They would never offer troops after WWIII so why bother now? "Oh we would do it if only for the UN." Yea right go fsck yourself. And if won a million dollars I'd give you half.
Nice of you start the clock with Rumsfled calling your country old Europe. I seem to remember the german sec' of defense insinuating that Bush is a Nazi. It's rather strange that the grandchildren of [i ]actual Nazis[/i] would call the American president one. But we'll forget that diplomatic blunder and blame everything on the US.
Get your facts straight (and wipe that specle of foam from your mouth).
1) Germany has a constitution that expressly forbids waging or partaking in a preemptive war (this is considered a war crime here as we had our fill of unprovoked attacks on other country, thank you very much) except under UN or NATO control. Guess who made sure after WWII that this was part of our constitution?
Germany did offer troops - in fact Schröder pledged 100% all out backing of the US after 9/11 as far as our constitution allows. German AWACS even secured *your* freaking airspace while the US was reducing Afghanistan to gravel.
Link.
2) It was not the german sec of defense but the minister of justice who was sacked just days after the incident. Actually it created an outcry over here and Schröder had the guts to apologize - the same can not exactly be said about Bush, Rummie or their choice words.
Links to case
3) If you say Germany should bugger off - just fine and dandy with me. The Iraq case is so severly botched it is not worth the life of one of our kids.
I seem to recall, however, that this feeling is *not* shared by high-ranking NATO and US officials who practically beg us to send troops in order to avoid Mr. Bush losing his face in front of the UN general assembly.
seems like France and Germany have even scared the Aussies from sending troops to Iraq. Makes you wonder if they wanted to join the EU as well...
Originally posted by pfflam
I see . . . but why's it only on the Rueter's page and nowhere else?
i think i saw this on cnn yesterday
Originally posted by Scott
Yes we can. Germany can go to hell. They would never offer troops after WWIII so why bother now? "Oh we would do it if only for the UN." Yea right go fsck yourself. And if won a million dollars I'd give you half.
Nice of you start the clock with Rumsfled calling your country old Europe. I seem to remember the german sec' of defense insinuating that Bush is a Nazi. It's rather strange that the grandchildren of [i ]actual Nazis[/i] would call the American president one. But we'll forget that diplomatic blunder and blame everything on the US.
How long have I been asleep? WWIII? Who fought? Who won?
Originally posted by jwri004
How long have I been asleep? WWIII? Who fought? Who won?
The neo-cons fought. And the won.
Justlike I am fighting you in make believe ultra chess right now.
HA. you lost again. 81-0 to me.