SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bald Eagle who wrote (408109)5/21/2003 12:47:58 PM
From: Skywatcher  Respond to of 769670
 
US Post-War Effort Seen as on the Brink of "Fiasco"
Yahoo News

Monday 19 May 2003

Nearly 40 days after the fall of Baghdad, US efforts to restore order and establish a functioning
administration in Iraq are faltering as US forces struggle to cope with lawlessness, a fragile
infrastructure and fractious Iraqi political forces, analysts said.

"It's close to a fiasco," said Loren Thompson, an analyst with the Lexington Institute, a
Washington research organization.

"The contrasts between the efforts to rebuild Iraq and the stunning military victory could hardly be
more pronounced."

Rejecting criticism that the United States failed to prepare for the post-war occupation, US
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has suggested that no plan could have anticipated the
conditions confronting US forces.

"You couldn't know how it would end," Rumsfeld said in an interview with The New York Times
published Monday.

"When it did end, you take it as you found it and get at it, knowing the single most important thing
is security."
But the Pentagon did have a detailed plan for the post-war rehabilitation of Iraq. It just proved overly
optimistic.

As outlined in pre-war press conferences and congressional hearings, it called for a swift revival of
the country's oil industry and economic life and an interim US-led administration advised by "free"
Iraqis but run by mid-level Baathist bureaucrats.
US officials planned to keep intact government ministries other than the defense and interior
ministries, and to use surviving elements of the Iraqi military for reconstruction tasks around the
country.

After vetting, those military units would serve as the nucleus of a new Iraqi army under the original
scheme. It assumed that Iraqis, once freed from a quarter century of oppressive dictatorial rule,
would be eager to cooperate.

With that plan in mind, US commanders designed a military campaign that avoided widespread
destruction of infrastructure, emphasized a swift resolution to the conflict and made an intensive but
ultimately fruitless effort to encourage the Iraqi military to defect en masse.

But the Iraqi army, which fought rather than surrender, was destroyed or disappeared and the
bureaucrats went home.

The regime also left behind empty jails and tonnes of small arms and ammunition distributed
throughout Baghdad for a neighborhood-by-neighborhood defense of the city that failed to
materialize, according to US military officials.

When US armored forces blitzed into Baghdad, the mix of criminals, defeated regime security
forces and weapons in the absence of police turned the celebratory looting that followed into a
prolonged and destabilizing crime spree.

"What prevented us from projecting authority early is we were still fighting," said a US defense
official.

The US Central Command was slow to make the shift from combat to reconstruction, delaying the
arrival in country of Jay Garner, the retired lieutenant general who was supposed to get the country
running again.

"We've planned more for this than other ones," said the defense official. "But when you don't know
what you're really going to have to face, it's tough to plan, project the degree of looting or how
people would react."

In the view of the critics, though, the Pentagon made a fundamental miscalculation in believing
that Iraq could be stabilized without a major commitment of troops over a long period of time.

"The problem is that they overlooked one key consideration, which is how do you assure civil
order so that you can get on to all those other activities," Thompson said.

"I think the Bush Pentagon is so reluctant to accept open-ended military commitments, so ill
disposed to acknowledging that it has a military that isn't up to all the tasks they face, that it
simply assumed that it could restore civil order with a small, small force," he said.

In what appears to be a mid-course correction, Washington has sent a new civil administrator,
Ambassador Paul Bremer, to Baghdad to replace Jay Garner, whose tenure was marked by a
yawning security vacuum.

Bremer's arrival has coincided with a tougher approach to lawlessness. Commanders have put
more troops on the street and launched a campaign of neighborhood cleanups and they are
reassessing how many troops will be needed to stabilize Iraq.

Currently, there are more than 142,000 US troops in Iraq with another 20,000 from the 1st
Armored Division flowing into the country.

The Pentagon has delayed the withdrawal of 3rd Infantry Division to give the 1st Armored Division
time to get settled and also to give Bremer a chance to weigh in on the question of how large a
force will be required, the defense official said.
CC



To: Bald Eagle who wrote (408109)5/21/2003 12:55:23 PM
From: Bill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
You don't seem willing to discuss it at all. What are your views? Exactly what do you disagree with? And why?

Sitting back hurling insults without discussion is acting like a dope.