This is just getting absurd. Kevin Drum and others are now claiming that the reorganization of the Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction/occupation is a sign of failure. Says Kevin:
So we’ve tried the Pentagon, we’ve tried the State Department, and now we’re going to try the White House. What’s next if that doesn’t work?
I guess that is why all the Democrats were screaming in unison “What is the plan? There is no Plan!!!” Clearly, there was to be one and only one approach to the situation, and any shifting of priorities, response to events on the ground, or reaction to past failures and successes should be viewed through a narrow partisan lens as nothing more than a failure.
Get real.
greg
That was a stupid post by Drum.
I guess he thinks that if a football team is mostly running the ball, but then if the running game stops working as well as it was, that they should just keep running it instead of mixing some passes in because going to the pass would be an admission of failure.
I’m sure his “me too” chorus in the comments section found his post enlightening, though.
Kimmitt
This isn’t a set of folks changing their minds on a set of policies; this is set after set of folks getting fired for incompetence.
There was no plan; there is no plan; there never will be a plan.
David Perron
Someone got fired? Who? You certainly didn’t get _that_ from the article, Kimmitt.
JKC
Greg, if you’re going to use a football analogy, use the right one.
The Bush League is replacing the coach every time the team gets behind.
I can understand (and applaud) changing tactics as the situation changes. What I see here is shuffling of the organizational chart as opposed to any real attempt to address problems.
Emperor Misha I
Well, John, you’ve got to understand where the loony left get their perception of the concept of a “plan” from:
Josef Stalin.
There is to be only ONE damn 5 year plan, and any modifications to it will earn you a ticket to Siberia.
And we all know what a huge, resounding success THAT socialist regime was, don’t we?
Hint: Just as successful as every OTHER attempt at socialism.
JKC
Well, well, well, Misha. I see someone got another conditional release from the locked ward.
If the vocabulary’s not too big, try re-reading my post. I’m for changing tactics, but this strikes me a lot like GM’s reaction to the Japanese auto industry: hire new “brand managers,” shuffle a few executives, but don’t address the fact that you’re building crappy cars.
Emperor Misha I
“If the vocabulary’s not too big, try re-reading my post. I’m for changing tactics, but this strikes me a lot like GM’s reaction to the Japanese auto industry: hire new “brand managers,” shuffle a few executives, but don’t address the fact that you’re building crappy cars.”
And you know for a fact, of course, that we’re “building crappy cars”, O Oracle of the West?
I wish I could tune into the same stations that you’re privy to, but I’m fresh out of tinfoil and my fillings got replaced.
Dean
JKC:
Was that GM, or the UAW that you’re talking about?
I mean, GM may have designed crappy cars, but I think that your brethren the auto unions weren’t much better when it came to actually putting them together?
Brandon
I’m unclear on what the “plan” for re-building Iraq would have looked like. Would it simply be a timeline for events, such as forming a governing council, having elections, holding trials of Baathists? Or would it go into more detail on how such events would occur? And given the tenuous relationship between most “plans” hatched by latre organizations, what would be the point?
Thumper
“I’m unclear what the ‘plan’ for rebuilding Iraq would have looked like.”
Brandon:
Exactly.
That’s why we should have waited before going into Iraq to HAVE a plan, instead of asserting confidently (and wrongly) that we would be openly greeted as liberators.
The only feasible plan from the get-go was the one that neocons cast aside in the first instance: put together an international coalition to jointly topple Saddam/find WMDs, and then jointly reconstruct Iraq.
You may pooh-pooh that as a lot of process, but a multinational coalition to rebuild Iraq has two things going for it: legitimacy to the Iraqi people, and international sources of funding.
The answer is really, really elementary, but the Bush Administration thought it could reinvent the wheel.
JKC
Dean-
Let’s not hijack the thread. Address the argument (if you can.) Otherwise, go back in the bedroom and play with your George Bush Action Figure.
Emperor Misha I
“The answer is really, really elementary, but the Bush Administration thought it could reinvent the wheel”
And so far, the vast majority of the actual Iraqi people (not the “Turbaned Friends of Dean” Rent-a-Jihadi rabble) are quite happy with this invention.
This, of course, renders your opinion fascinatingly irrelevant to anybody who actually gives a shit about the future of Iraq.
David Perron
Brandon:
Good point. It looks like anything Bush wouldn’t have come up with. Funny how the French aren’t getting blamed for throwing a wrench into what was going to be a really workable renovation of Iraq. Awfully unilateral of them, y’know.
Thumper: name three neocons in the White House. I’m not sure it’s possible for you to know that the current state of affairs is due to conservatives who used to be liberals, but I’m willing to listen.
Dean
What argument, JKC?
So far, you’ve “corrected” one person’s football analogy, then opened up the GM makes crappy cars subroutine.
When you get called on it, you accuse ME of hijacking the thread?
Why don’t you go play “doctor”, or just plain go away?
JKC
Dean, what exactly did you call me on? It sounded to me like a one-off shot at a union, which has zero to do with Iraq.
But for the sake of etiquette and reasoned debate, I’ll dispense with analogies, and I won’t make fun of you or Misha. My bad.
I would like to know, though, how another re-shuffling of management is going to solve the problems on the ground in either Iraq of Afghanistan. Maybe Dr Rice is the perfect person to put in charge of things: what’s she going to do differently?
Look, I want to see us succeed in Iraq. And six months is not a long time in the grand scheme of things. But Osama bin Laden is still out there (although probably incapacitated), the Taliban are resurgent, and Saddam and his WMD’s are nowhere to be found. The lights still aren’t on in Baghdad, and significant parts of the population are getting antsy. I don’t expect the White House or the CPA to have an answer for everything, but I’d feel better with some reassurance that the security situation is going to be realistically addressed at some point.
David Perron
I’m idly curious; is the supposition that since you haven’t actually seen a plan, then no plan exists? Or is it just that no plan exists because our government is too intrinsically incompetent to come up with one? Or is there a third choice?
Emperor Misha I
“Look, I want to see us succeed in Iraq. And six months is not a long time in the grand scheme of things. But…”
15 yd penalty, automatic loss of down. Disregard everything in front of “but”.
At least it saved me the trouble.
I’m sure you’d “love” to see us succeed, as long as a Donk is sitting in the White House.
“…Osama bin Laden is still out there (although probably incapacitated),”
…and wildly successful, as evidenced by the torrent of al-Qa’eda attacks reported in the headlines every day.
Listen: Osama is DEAD. Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY survives end-stage renal disease for two years, holed up in a cage.
That the turbaned twits swallow al-Jazeera’s edited tapes hook, line and sinker doesn’t surprise me. But that somebody who isn’t having sex with goats on a regular basis does… Now THAT’S baffling.
“the Taliban are resurgent,”
Sure are. We whacked about 80 of ’em not too long ago, and we weren’t even using our own troops. The Afghans are getting quite good at capping the turbans.
“and Saddam and his WMD’s are nowhere to be found.”
…nor have they been heard of. (See the above comment about al-Jizmeera tapes and being a gullible gimp). Even if Saddam IS alive, and it’s quite possible that he is, he’s not exactly much of a threat to anybody except the billy goats he’s hiding among, is he?
And spare me the WMD blah, please.
It’s getting more than a little bit tiresome having to spell it out over and over again for the benefit of the retarded among us. Yes, that would be you, JKC. Now hop back on the short bus.
“The lights still aren’t on in Baghdad,”
Maybe not ALL the time, thanks to Saddam, but more and MORE of the time.
Oh, and they don’t have nationalized healthcare, social security or “Survivor – Tikrit” on prime time TeeVee yet either.
It’s a QUAGMIRE!
{rolls eyes}
“and I won’t make fun of you or Misha.”
Oh thank you so much. I was about to go eat a bullet after that expertly wielded insult that left my ego nuked to dust, blown away by the late summer breeze.
JKC
Dave-
Third choice. My unexpert opinion is that we went into the occupation with far too few troops; hence the current problems in the “Sunni middle” of the country. From a domestic point of view, the complete lack of candor on how to pay for occupation just plain pisses me off.
Your mileage may vary depending on personal ideology…
David Perron
I think it’s got more to do with credibility, JKC. About how many troops do you think would have done the trick, and based on what military expertise?
I myself think we put in about the right number, but failed in relieving them in a timely fashion. In order to have prevented the casualties in our ranks, we would have had to utterly subjugated the Iraqi population, IMO. In other words, we would have had to kill a bunch more civilians while annihilating the remnants of the Baath government. Which would have made us more the bad guys, and irreversably alienated any of the population that may have considered us friendly.
JMO, of course. Goes without saying, these days.
Kimmitt
About how many troops do you think would have done the trick, and based on what military expertise?
“Hundreds of thousands,” based on Gen. Shinseki’s expert testimony before Congress.
David Perron
So, we have some experts that think “hundreds of thousands”, which is a pretty broad and nonspecific estimate, and some others that think a hundred thousand would have been sufficient. Sounds like a difference of opinion rather than a foregone conclusion. And of course, the lower estimates proved to be more than adequate. Unless you’d like to present a case for the situation in Iraq spiraling out of control.
Shinseki is not the final authority where it comes to warfighting, unless you are inclined to cherry-pick opinion.
Kimmitt
You asked how many would do the trick, and based on what expertise. I applied logic:
1) There was a difference of opinion between experts on the issue. Some said “one hundred thousand at most,” while others said “multiple hundreds of thousands.”
2) The experts who espoused the “one hundred thousand at most” theory have been proven incorrect.
3) Therefore, the experts who espoused the “hundreds of thousands” theory currently hold my attention as strong candidates for correct.
Aakash
Some war supporters say that things in Iraq are better than that which is being reported by the media. But conditions overseas in situations like these are naturally very tense. There is no way to convey emotions and foreign situation through prose or well-regulated news reports. Those who are over there know.
As with Afghanistan, the post-war and occupation period is actually a lot worse – for a variety of those involved – than what those of us over here can see and read about in the press.
Harry
How in the world do you create a solid plan based on unknown outcomes? There was no Marshall Plan in 1943 because we still had no idea how post war Europe and Asia would look.
The major error that the US made was not keeping the embedded reporters with the troops. Because since the embedded reporters have left what we are now getting is speculation, punditry, and spin.
Since we have not occupied conquered enemy territory since the 1950s this is pretty much a learning experience.
To have a real peace in Iraq the US would literally have had to wipe out a great deal of the Sunni population, who were getting a fantastic deal from Saddam’s hold on power. Yep, that would make things a great deal more peaceful in Iraq today, but somehow I don’t believe the Tranzis who post here would have gone for that solution either, but Saddam would have loved it. Woulda worked too.
David Perron
Truly, Kimmitt? You believe 2) is a true statement? Then you don’t mind if I ask you to back it up with something factual, do you? Given that it’s been proven, that shouldn’t be hard to do.
Robin Roberts
I think Kimmitt needs to lay off the late night snacks before going to bed, because in our reality I missed the part where the Iraqi people are demonstrating in the streets at the absence of troops from Tonga and New Zealand.
The UN doesn’t add any “legitimacy” to the Iraqi people – they know the UN as the organization that helped Saddam line his pockets through its corruption of the Oil-for-Food program.
jcrue
but in the end are not the signs of success these?
1) no more terrorist attacks on American soil
2) no one is “disappearing” into SH’s penal system
3) no one is being raped and tortured by SH’s sons
4) things ARE getting better in Iraq
5) even with a plan, e.g. The Marshall Plan, it takes years to rebuild war-torn countries
6) the Food for Oil actually is going for food
7) we continue to provide the world with evidence that those opposed to the war were complicit with SH
8) we continue to discover everything but the smoking gun that shows SH’s weapons programs in defiance of years of UN resolutions and inspections
9) the Taliban, although “resurgant”, is more of a joke than it was before we moved into Afghanistan, and they will be dealt with more effectively by the American military and its allies than anyone else on this planet
10) and finally, that we’ve made the rest of the surrounding countries re-evaluate their overt opposition to the US and the civilized world
I don’t need no stinkin’ plan – now if the stupid unemployed Iraqi soldiers would just go out and start businesses of their own and show some individual responsibility, then we might have the makings of a country they can be proud of. . .
just my two cents. here’s your change.
Kimmitt
Okay, in order:
> 1) no more terrorist attacks on American soil
…and if I beat a drum continuously during a solar eclipse, it goes away. That doesn’t mean one had anything to do with the other, and Iraq had nothing to do with preventing terrorist attacks on US soil. However, invading Iraq did have a lot to do with putting us in a situation where terrorist attacks on Iraqi soil kill Americans.
>2) no one is “disappearing” into SH’s penal system
This is an unmitigated good.
>3) no one is being raped and tortured by SH’s sons
Also an unmitigated good.
>4) things ARE getting better in Iraq
I don’t think either of us really knows the answer to that — what we do know is that Bush has reshuffled his team twice because things apparently are not good enough in Iraq for his liking.
>5) even with a plan, e.g. The Marshall Plan, it takes years to rebuild war-torn countries
This is very true; I wish Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle, and Rumsfeld had been more truthful on this score. Also, I wish we were putting this fact into practice with regards to Afghanistan, which is suffering from a sort of benign neglect.
>6) the Food for Oil actually is going for food
Yeah, but not so much with the oil.
>7) we continue to provide the world with evidence that those opposed to the war were complicit with SH
This is outright insanity. In most European countries, opposition to the war ran at something like 80%. Do you really think that 80% of Western European citizens were complicit with Saddam Hussein?
>8) we continue to discover everything but the smoking gun that shows SH’s weapons programs in defiance of years of UN resolutions and inspections
We found a bottle of botulism in a refrigerator. I had one of those back sophomore year as an undergrad, ferchrissakes, until we threw it out when we moved at the end of the semester. What we discovered was that the UN resolutions and inspections worked — that Saddam wanted to acquire illegal weaponry but was prevented from doing so.
>9) the Taliban, although “resurgant”, is more of a joke than it was before we moved into Afghanistan, and they will be dealt with more effectively by the American military and its allies than anyone else on this planet
Will be. Noted. Can you give us a timeline on that? And explain why the hell we let them resurge in the first place?
>10) and finally, that we’ve made the rest of the surrounding countries re-evaluate their overt opposition to the US and the civilized world
…and decide that the only way to avoid getting invaded while opposing US interests is to acquire nuclear weapons. Mass proliferation. Great.
David Perron
Ok, Kimmitt, but you’re still two questions down for me.
1) Someone got fired? Who?
2) How and when was it proven that we occupied with the wrong number of troops?
Kimmitt
Gen. Jay Garner was outright replaced by Amb. Bremer. Then Sec. Rumsfeld was effectively fired from the position of “Bremer’s boss” to be replaced by Dr. Rice.
As for your question as to whether or not it has been shown that we have too few troops on the ground, it’s a judgement call. Does three leadership sets in six months combined with ongoing failures to contain the damage caused by the sabotage of Iraqi oil and other utility lines (combined with the continued casualties) imply that the current strategy is not optimal or not? And is that optimality related to the size of the occupation force? I believe so, and I’ve made a case, but it’s the kind of thing on which reasonable people can disagree.
David Perron
Depends on whether you can make a case for us having done better, Kimmitt. I don’t think you’re prepared to do that. Your claim, your evidence required.
Bremer kept Garner on for a bit. In fact, I can’t find anything saying he’s been dismissed at all. Maybe you can help. Anyway, you don’t know that Garner was “fired” for incompetence, now, do you?
“Garner spent two weeks in Baghdad as civil administrator before the White House named L. Paul Bremer to take over that post, representing a military-to-civilian handoff. The retired general said it had always been envisioned that his own role would be short-term. Bremer was to oversee the formation of an interim government and lead the U.S. team, and Garner was to stay on to work on other aspects of the reconstruction.
When allied troops ended their three-month occupation of northern Iraq after the Gulf War in 1991, Garner was the last man out after the U.S. flag was lowered. As allied commander of the postwar effort to aid Kurdish Iraqi refugees, known as Operation Provide Comfort, Garner had helped resettle and protect tens of thousands.”
From http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2003/04/15/iraq/whoswho549503_0_13_person.shtml
If they’d kept Garner in as top guy, there’d be untold amount of shrieking about how the head of SY Technology was getting deeper in bed with the government.
Kimmitt, I find that you’re in all likelihood bereft of a point.
Kimmitt
If they’d kept Garner in as top guy, there’d be untold amount of shrieking about how the head of SY Technology was getting deeper in bed with the government.
I agree; Gen. Garner was not a very good choice for initial head of the transition.
David Perron
Now you’re just quibbling, Kimmitt. Are you actually upset because the Bush administration is showing itself to be more adaptable to change than your preconceived notions tell you they should be?
I believe your first quote went something like this:
“This isn’t a set of folks changing their minds on a set of policies; this is set after set of folks getting fired for incompetence.”
“Set” implies a group. “Set after set” strongly implies this revolving door of groups. So far you’ve identified one individual who was not fired, but rather had another layer placed between him and the controlling authority.
Again, where’s the point?
Kimmitt
Ask me again in three months after the next reshuffle.
David Perron
Good grief, Kimmitt, does your significant other have anywhere near this hard a time getting you to admit when you’re wrong?
Kimmitt
Okay, that was funny. And the answer is, “not nearly;” like most men, I have come to understand that it is far safer to assume my culpability in any dispute.
David Perron
You and I have far too many things in common, Kimmitt. It’s starting to scare me.