Iraq: definitely not according to plan

Wow. Someone really believed that “greeted as liberators” bs.

[quote=“BBC: Iraq invasion plan ‘delusional’”]The US invasion plan for Iraq envisaged that only 5,000 US troops would remain in Iraq by December 2006, declassified Central Command documents show.

The material also shows that the US military projected a stable, pro-US and democratic Iraq by that time.

The August 2002 material was obtained by the National Security Archive (NSA). Its officials said the plans were based on delusional assumptions.

The US currently has some 132,000 troops in the violence-torn state.

The documents - in the former of PowerPoint slides - were prepared by the now-retired Gen Tommy Franks and other top commanders at the time.

The documents were presented at a briefing in August 2002 - less than a year before the US invasion of Iraq in April 2003.

The commanders predicted that after the fighting was over there would be a two- to three-month “stabilisation” phase, followed by an 18- to 24-month “recovery” stage.

They projected that the US forces would be almost completely “re-deployed” out of Iraq at the end of the “transition” phase - within 45 months of invasion. [/quote]
Incredible just how wrong things can go.

Incredible how delusional some people can be.

Bush has no plan to invade Iran. He’ll still invade (when the voices tell him to)… its just that he has no plan! Much like with Iraq. What a tragic waste of life, not to mention a trillion dollars.

If true, this explains why Jay Garner was given so few resources to try and run an interim post-war government in Iraq.

Hey, when you’ve got the “George Washington of Iraq” aka Chalabi aka convicted swindler aka Iranian intelligence asset, who needs plans?

Thanks to, among others, Feith, “the dumbest fucking guy on the planet” (Tommy Franks)

Stupid fuckers should of let thier Generals run the war. They had a great one at State, (Powell), but they didn’t listen to him either.
I used to think it was good that civilians ran the military, but only up to a point.
They should only decide “Yes, it’s bad enough that we should go to war for it.” And then shut the fuck up and let their Generals do what they are trained to do.

Maybe it’s a typo. Maybe they actually meant 5000 troops to secure the US embassy.

The new US embassy in Baghdad is said to be 104 acres is six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York, and two-thirds the acreage of Washington’s National Mall. Who doesn’t expect massive uprisings when a foreign invading power creates a power base in the middle of its capital?

Here’s some reality-check ‘shock and awe’ that can maybe help change things.
Watch it if you can stomach ‘the story of what happens to everyday Americans
when corporations go to war’:


Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers

[quote=“bobl”]Stupid fuckers should of let thier Generals run the war. They had a great one at State, (Powell), but they didn’t listen to him either.
I used to think it was good that civilians ran the military, but only up to a point.
They should only decide “Yes, it’s bad enough that we should go to war for it.” And then shut the fuck up and let their Generals do what they are trained to do.[/quote]

I agree, let politicians say “yes let’s go to war,” let the generals wage war (too bad they didn’t listen to Shinseki), and then let those who are qualified nation build. Certainly, it was NOT P. Bremer, A. Chalabi, Halliburton, CACI, SAIC, et al. I don’t know who the experts in nation building are exactly, but it seems NATO has got some experience under its belt as does the U.N. Any other organizations known for nation building?

Bodo

NATO fights only where it is not really needed. The UN ran at the first bomb blast. Who do you suggest for additional nation building (read: recolonization?)

Not sure I understand the NATO comment, relevant?
If the generals had been permitted to fight the war, and secure the country, UN wouldn’t have had to run because their offices were blown up. Right?

Bodo

I was quite sure that you would not and am very sure that you do not.

Oh yes, very relevant…

How do you “secure” an insurgency? Can you provide me with an example of where more troops were the successful solution to an insurgency? civil conflict? Let’s face it. We had high hopes. They were dashed. This is going to have to go through the usual way. They are going to have to fight it out until they are good and sick of killing each other and this reaches a stable stalemate. Expect this to last the usual seven to 12 years.

Too bad but there you are. The irony, however, is that these levels of violence were also present under Saddam. It is just now that people like you care… How special…

[quote=“fred smith”]The irony, however, is that these levels of violence were also present under Saddam. It is just now that people like you care… How special…[/quote]Whew… I’m dizzy.

I was quite sure that you would not and am very sure that you do not.

Oh yes, very relevant…

How do you “secure” an insurgency? Can you provide me with an example of where more troops were the successful solution to an insurgency? civil conflict? Let’s face it. We had high hopes. They were dashed. This is going to have to go through the usual way. They are going to have to fight it out until they are good and sick of killing each other and this reaches a stable stalemate. Expect this to last the usual seven to 12 years.

Too bad but there you are. The irony, however, is that these levels of violence were also present under Saddam. It is just now that people like you care… How special…[/quote]

Fred, your ad hominem attacks are so boorish, yawn :unamused:

I don’t remember reading about the all out civil war inside Iraq under Saddam. I am not suggesting that Saddam was a great guy to have as a ruler, but he seems to have done a hell of a lot better at keeping the peace than P. Bremer and T. Franks did. There were mixed marriages, mixed neighborhoods, and less sectarianism than there is now. Maybe if P. Bremer hadn’t put the entire Iraqi army out of work as well as Baathist bureaucrats there would have been less of an insurgency, huh? What the fuck are a bunch of guys with guns and no jobs supposed to do to put food on the table. Brilliant plan that was. Like I said, Cheney, Rummy, and Bremer et al shouldn’t have been in charge of rebuilding the nation. It’s obvious they had no clue.

The only reason I “care” about what’s going on in Iraq is because the Bush admin dragged us into an unnecessary war over there, and now American soldiers are getting killed needlessly. Otherwise I could give two shits about it all.

Bodo

Dingy is a more apt description…

So how many died under Saddam from war? rape? murder? torture? starvation? malnutrition? lack of medical care? forced migration? How many are dying now? Wake up people. Iraqis are violent people. This is going to take time. Now, that we have a real insurgency on our hands, we are probably going to need seven to 12 years (average). But look at Kurdistan today. Look at it in 1991. What happened? Why? Will the same level of violence eventually result in peaceful pluralistic stability? Maybe. We need to stick it out to find out I think.

[quote=“fred smith”] Wake up people. Iraqis are violent people. [/quote]Flowers? Liberators? Ink stained fingers following votes? fred smith smearing all those who (didn’t) suggest Iraqis aren’t worthy or capable of democracy.

dizzier and dizzier

as are your juvenile paranoid cynical remarks about Bush administration officials.

What would you call the actions taken against the Kurds and Shias? 500,000 of the latter were killed in 1991 alone. With all the violence and invasion and occupation, we are at about 65,000 now after nearly four years.

So perhaps if we killed a million we could bring stability of the Saddam variety to Iraq as well. Would you like us to do so?

True, but unfortunately, we are now going to be seeing a lot more of such violence until a political solution can be achieved. This is the case in every such sectarian conflict. It is going to be a long rough ride. We will need to stick this out. Would you have us leave now?

That old Chestnut. 80 percent or more of the army was Shia. They melted away, deserted, there was no “army.” What was left was the old Baathist officer corps. Why they should have remained in position is beyond me. Would you like to tell us why? Given that this was one of the chief fears of the Shias. The British had done this to them in the past. Remember? Ah, maybe you don’t…

Given that 80 percent of the country was in seething resentment at these officials, how exactly their remaining in power would be a good idea is beyond me.

Turn immediately to blowing up women and children on buses? Oh I see. That would be the natural thing to do.

These kinds of things happen in all wars. Winning them is the ultimate form of success not the navel gazing negativity and obsession with failures.

None whatsoever. Much better to have you and Jaboney in charge. You both know so much about what should have been done.

You can memorize leftwing cant and boilerplate until the cows come home but with 17 UN Resolutions (all binding) and similar actions and demands for action during the entire Clinton administration by all manner of Democrat officials, how exactly did Bush drag us into an “unnecessary” war. No wmds were found. They were a small part of my support of the rationale for invading.

needlessly? How so?

[quote]
Otherwise I could give two shits about it all. [/quote]

Yes, that about sums it up doesn’t it? Best then to leave this to those who actually do. You can absolve yourself of any responsibility for our decisions, actions there. Best to just not talk about it anymore… deal?

Who is talking about flowers?

More than 80 percent were glad to see Saddam gone so yes liberators works for me.

One of our great successes surely…

Where do you get my stating that they are not worthy or capable of democracy? I am saying this is going to take a bit longer than originally anticipated. I do not see anyone saying that Iraqis cannot or should not or are not capable of having democracy. But the violence is well obvious isn’t it? The Middle East is a violent place filled with ruthless people. Is this such a suprise to you. What we need to do is cut down those who are preaching and funding and arming violence in Iraq. Iran is a major factor that does not get the attention that it should. This is a regional war and we need to start acting like we understand that.

Honestly, I wonder how you are able to function at all. Getting out of bed must be a major accomplishment for you.

[quote=“fred smith”]
How do you “secure” an insurgency? Can you provide me with an example of where more troops were the successful solution to an insurgency? civil conflict? Let’s face it. We had high hopes. They were dashed. This is going to have to go through the usual way. They are going to have to fight it out until they are good and sick of killing each other and this reaches a stable stalemate. Expect this to last the usual seven to 12 years.

Too bad but there you are. The irony, however, is that these levels of violence were also present under Saddam. It is just now that people like you care… How special…[/quote]

When was the last time non-Muslims successfully invaded and occupied a Muslim country? Is your oft-repeated figure on the length of insurgences based non-Muslim/Muslim scenarios?

Pentagon Whistle-Blower on the Coming War With Iran
Posted on Feb 27, 2007
Full audio/transcript

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (ret.), a veteran of the Pentagon with firsthand experience of the administration’s cherry-picking of intelligence, reveals why Bush thinks he can win a war with Iran, why few politicians are serious about withdrawal and why “when they call Iraq a success, they mean it.”

[quote]KAREN KWIATKOWSKI:
…Most people in the Pentagon, there’s 23,000 people worked in the Pentagon. Most of those people were as in the dark as any of the Americans. They believed what they read in the papers, and what they read in the papers, particularly The New York Times and The Washington Post had been, for the most part, planted by The Administration. We know this now, the whole Congress knows this now, they’ve had a number of hearings publicly faltered, I think even the DODIG just recently faltered, Doug Feith and his whole organization for planting and mis-, providing misleading stories, many of which were later leaked on purpose to the press.

And they’re (‘a number of political appointees: Doug Feith, certainly Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz’) brought in, and this is where the propaganda was kind of put together, this is where the so-called alternative intelligence assessments were put together by the civilian appointees of the Bush Administration. Most of which, in fact, probably all of the Pentagon shared a neo-conservative world vision, which has a particular role for us, and that included the topping of Saddam Hussein, and it includes the toppling of the leadership in Tehran. These guys are the ones doing it, they’re doing it. They’re putting all the propaganda, they’re spreading stories, planting stuff in the media.

at least in that office, and I presume this went all the way through the rest of policy, but we were told that when we needed to fill in data, putting it in papers that we would send up, doing our job, as we did our daily job, we were no longer to look at CIA and DIA intelligence, we were simply to call the Office of Special Plans and they would send down to us talking points, which we would incorporate verbatim no deletions, no additions, no modifications into every paper that we did. And of course, that was very unusual and all the action officers are looking at each other like, well that’s interesting. We’re not to look at the intelligence any more, we’re simply to go to this group of political appointees and they will provide to us word for word what we should say about Iraq, about WMD and about terrorism.

Vietnam is filled with examples. And Daniel Ellsberg’s information and his Pentagon paper that he released factual information that contradicted what political appointees at the top of the Pentagon were saying to Congress and saying to the American people.

So politicians and their politically appointed military leaders will lie, historically do lie when it has to do with making war, particularly making a war that they want. And what has happened in the Bush Administration is the war that they want was Iraq. And the war that they want is Iran, and the war that they want is Syria, okay? That’s the war they want. They don’t want Vietnam. I don’t know why, they don’t want Vietnam, they want these places, this is what the neo-conservatives are particularly interested in. So we have war. And they make up stories and we’re seeing the exact same thing in terms of Iran, which is quite alarming because it seems as if we can’t stop this, we can’t prevent this.

While we as American citizens do not like being lied to, particularly being lied to into a stupid quagmire that makes no sense. We don’t’ like being lied to. Congress doesn’t like being lied to. However, many in Congress, and certainly in this administration agree, and this is Democrats and Republicans, like the idea that we have gone into Iraq, we have built four mega bases, they are complete. Most of the money we gave to Halliburton was for construction and completion of these bases. We have probably, of the 150,000, 160,000 troops we have in Iraq probably 110,000 of those folks are associated with one of those four mega bases. Safely ensconced behind acres and acres of concrete. To operate there indefinitely, no matter what happens in Baghdad, no matter who takes over, no matter if the country splits into three pieces or it stays one.

If you want to hit Syria, can you do it from Iraq? Of course you can. And now you can do it from bases that will support any type of airplane you want, any number of troops in barracks. I mean we can do things from Iraq. And this is what they wanted. So, yeah, we don’t like being lied to. But quite frankly, many people in the Congress, and certainly this administration, when they call Iraq a success, they mean it, and this is why.

We’re in Iraq to stay. And can we strike Iran from Iraq? Well, I don’t know if we’ll do that next week, but we can.

The facts are, we are in Iraq, we have the finest military installations in the world, the newest military installations in the world, and we’re not leaving them. We’re not turning them over to a Shiite government, we’re not turning them over to a Sunni government, we’re not turning them over to a Kurdish government. We’re not doing that. They are American bases. We’ve got our flag there. And this is kind of the way they used to do things, I guess back in the Middle Ages. Maybe the Dark Ages. A king decided he wanted to go do something, he went and did it. And this is George Bush. We call him an elected president. I mean, he’s operating much as kings have operated in the past.

JAMES HARRIS: You called him “the war pimp” in your essay. “He’s behaving,” as you put it, “a lot like a pimp would treat a prostitute, ‘you do like I tell you to do.’”

KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: that’s right, and over the money. “Get back to work.” We’re using these, we use these bases, we use these people, the country, it matters not one whit to us.

Dead Americans, unfortunately doesn’t seem to be the problem for most of us, which is a shame. We don’t like looking at ugly people, I will say that. And we’re seeing a lot of folks come back pretty deformed, mentally and even more obviously physically, deformed from their experiences in Iraq. And I think that could, that might give, I hate to say give hope, but realize the real moral price that we’re paying for this, that that can help. But quite frankly, I have no hope of us leaving Iraq. I think the intention was for us to put bases there, to stay there, operate militarily from there. And I think that’s what we’re going to do, Democrat, Republican, Independent, I can’t imagine anybody but Ron Paul, if you elect Ron Paul as president, those bases will be closed down. Otherwise…

JAMES HARRIS: Or Dennis Kucinich.

KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Or Kucinich, there you go, Kucinich would do it too. So these are the guys we are able to elect, but chances are, I hate to say, the machine is not behind these men. So yeah, we got a problem. Now is there anything optimistic? Yeah. I’m a God fearing Christian. God has the power. How He might express that, I don’t know. But yeah, can the average American do anything about it? I’m just not, I’m pretty not very, I’m not optimistic, I’m pessimistic that any single American can do much to prevent what seems to be going to happen here, attacking Iran and also this terrible thing we’ve done to Iraq which I think will continue to go on for many years. It will fester, fester for many years. [/quote]
And so much more… audio is about 32 minutes.