Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (27508)	8/30/2006 7:58:42 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541986

Message 22766084 I was very specific. If you had read Fiasco, you would know that the occupation plan, such as it was, consisted of a series of power point slides that the military thought was worthless. Right before the invasion the plan responsibility was shifted, ensuring confusion, but no substantive improvement. Some decent planning that had been 10 years (I recall, could be wrong, might have been 8) in the making by Shinseki was ignored, and the folks in charge of the plan right before the invasion didn't even know about it. It's rare to have a non-plan for a tricky occupation, yet it appears that is what happened in this case. Thus, it appears this may have been the worst planned occupation military historians have confronted. It is too bad you have no actual facts in your posts about the Iraq war planning to bolster your opinion that this opinion by military historians is "silly". If you come up with any facts about what a wonderful (or even adequate) occupation plan they had for Iraq, I do hope you will post them.