SubscribeSince they're always planning, planning, planning, for every contingency, possibility and scenario, because, you know, that's just what they do all the time, since they're some plan-crazy sumbitches, can you pretty please explain to me what happenned to the plan for occupying Iraq?It had to be scrapped after "Step One - Graciously Accept Flowers" went slightly awry.
considering that the administration was already talking about getting iraq in the days since 9/11You mean "before".
can you pretty please explain to me what happenned to the plan for occupying Iraq?
In March 2003, days before the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American war planners and intelligence officials met at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to review the Bush administration's plans to oust Saddam Hussein and implant democracy in Iraq.
Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel who was giving a briefing showed a slide describing the Pentagon's plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war, known in the planners' parlance as Phase 4-C. He was uncomfortable with his material - and for good reason.
The slide said: "To Be Provided."
Canada already started their invasion of America long ago.
But from May to August, that increased to 10 tons a month.I have to think that the dangers of this particular blunder were a lot higher back in 2005 when real shit was happening on the ground in Iran..But these initial "spikes of activity" didn't have the desired effect. The Iraqis didn't retaliate. They didn't provide the excuse Bush and Blair needed. So at the end of August, the allies dramatically intensified the bombing into what was effectively the initial air war. The number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq by allied aircraft shot up to 54.6 tons in September alone, with the increased rates continuing into 2003.In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq.
In Basra on September 19, British troops clashed with Iraqi police and Shi'ite militia, who had ironically welcomed the toppling of Saddam two years ago. The police had arrested two British undercover commandos who possessed suspicious bomb-making materials. British troops launched an armored raid on the jail to free their agents, fighting the same Iraqi police they had earlier trained. Iraqis had thought it strange that British agents would be caught with the types of bombs associated with insurgents attacking "Coalition" troops, and some assumed that the agents were trying to pit Iraqi religious groups against each other.Of course that stuff might still be going on, and the attacks on Syria and Lebanon are pretty scary signs, so..
Yet at the same time, bombs were going off across the border in Khuzestan. In June, a series of car bombings in Ahvaz (75 miles from Basra) killed 6 people. In August, Iran arrested a group of Arab separatist rebels, and accused them of links to British intelligence in Basra. In September, explosions hit Khuzestani cities, halting crude oil transfers from onshore wells. On October 15, two major bomb explosions in an Ahvaz market killed 4 and injured 95. A November 3 analysis in Asia Times blames Iraqi Sunni insurgents for the bombings.
Iranian officials accused Britain of backing the attacks, and tied the rebel bombs to the British commando incident in Basra. The Daily Star of Beirut reported on October 17 that Iranian officials "point to Western collusion in the sudden spike this year in ethnic unrest in the strategic, oil-producing province of Khuzestan and describe it as proof of a shadowy war that is receiving far less coverage in the international press than events in Iraq. Since the beginning of 2005, riots and a bombing campaign timed to coincide with the June presidential elections rocked Khuzestan's major cities."
Two sub-scenarios: He knew he was right in 1994, but it was also politically expedient to put forth that view (supported his boss); he was only being politically expedient in wanting to parrot his boss' decision, and had no idea what would happen. I favor the former in this scenario, because Cheney has never appeared dumb to me (just plain dumb, that is, like George Allen or Fred Thompson).--He really drank the Neocon kool aid and believes all the shit in the PNAC position papers.
If he is in fact a morally bankrupt son of a bitch, most of the reasons one could conjecture for his wanting ongoing war in the middle east boil down to power (hegemony, oil, money, etc.).
This would be really sad, because all of those neocon think tanks have always seemed to me like collections of the mostly smart kids who succeeded because they worked really hard to get all As, be valedictorians, go to the right schools and major in the right things (law, business), but really aren't the truly smartest kids in class. The really brilliant people were off misbehaving, or dropping out and thinking stuff up, etc., and these dolts still have a fucking chip on their shoulders about it. So they mercilessly and amorally make tons of money, and use some of it to fund "think" tanks where other wonky nerds like themselves get together and write lots of essays and articles and convince themselves that they really Have It All Figured Out, despite a complete lack of relevant real-world experience among the lot and piles and piles of actual evidence to the contrary. It just seems like a sad pseudo-intellectual circle jerk with terrifying real-world consequences now that they've had such direct avenues to power (and a facile president to manipulate).--Actually has what he views as America's best interests in mind. (That they coincide with the vastly increased wealth of himself and his friends only proves that, in addition to being the Guardian of Freedom, he continues to be quite the savvy businessman.)
This would mean that all the oil and regional-hegemony-as-assurance-of-continued-national-security stuff is truly valid. Which is the only option that to me makes any sort of sane sense, but is completely unsatisfying nonetheless because it raises several obvious questions: why didn't they frame their arguments in these terms? Is it impossible to be that naked about how the balance of global power works? Is all this (global war on terror, hit em there so they don't hit us here, etc.) really just the euphemistic ways that global power is presented and exercised? Or do they really think so little of the American public that we must be babied and told convenient lies so that we don't fret our pretty little heads about the real truths?Of the scenarios I can see, and given my experience with people, I think it's most likely that these assholes really are just those not-quite-the-smartest-kids-in-class wonky nerd types. They've concocted this alternate reality, articulated it quite well, and figured out how to implement it, and are too busy talking to and congratulating themselves to notice what a nightmare they're making of the world. But they really should know better.
A lot of people don't understand what 'planning' means in the military. They routinely create all kinds of plans for eventualities they don't expect to happen.
Just in case anyone missed it, really. This can't be overstated.Uh, just in case anyone missed it, really:
"As the United States prepared to respond to the attacks of September 11, Rumsfeld pushed a reluctant military to think unconventionally about going to war in Afghanistan. Dissatisfied with the plan for a large-scale invasion that he received from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Rumsfeld turned to the Pentagon's Special Operations forces."
"When the president's attention turned towards Iraq, Rumsfeld pushed his war planners to think outside the box. Emboldened by his success in Afghanistan, the secretary once again pushed aside Pentagon critics and demanded an unconventional war plan." (Rumsfeld's War)The fact that it went to shit isn't the fault of the guys who sit around drafting war plan after war plan, it's the fault of the people at the top who told them to shove their war plans up their asses.
svdb: Folks, are you aware that the US has a well-developed plan for invading Canada?Did you even read the article? This has nothing to do with "eventualities that they don't expect to happen":
A lot of people don't understand what "planning" means in the military. They routinely create all kinds of plans for eventualities they don't expect to happen.
« Older About two weeks ago, 41 Democratic senators signed... | drawnline:... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by null terminated at 1:04 AM on October 14, 2007