They really are smarter than you think
For a while those who were against the Iraqi war (both on the left and right) were complaining that the Bush administration hadn't set up any postwar planning for Iraq prior to the war. To an extent, we can all agree that there wasn't enough. But, contrary to popular belief, they did have postwar plans, and the whole "neo-conservatives want war, but don't think about the peace" concept is essentially dead in the water.
This link's to Douglas Feith, the Undersecretary of Defense (for Policy), who laid out the groundwork and rules for the postwar Iraq to the Senate Foriegn Intelligence Comittee. I'm acutally suprised that no one on the committee's spoken about this stuff (or if they have, in a vocal manner): http://www.defenselink.mil/policy/speech/feb_11_03.html
The big thing with postwar planning is that you just don't know what you're going to get from the ashes, prior to the war starting. For example, in your pre-war planning you want to use building A to house the waterworks projects in Baghdad after the war, but building A's blown up during the war (for whatever reason), so much for that plan. Go find a buliding B. Realistically, building the postwar before there IS a postwar, isn't something that you're going to be able to do. You need to take an assessment AFTER the war, in order to do that. And in the end, I can't fault the Bush or Blair administrations too much for not getting everything right with the postwar planning, prior or after the war.
And it'd be wise for the media to stop playing "gotcha!" on this, when bloggers can just as easily throw eggs at their face, once again. I mean, the media has totally underestimated the Bush administration repeatedly (why should they stop?), but c'mon, there's gotta be a breaking point in their stupidity. Of course, like with Regan, it may take them over 20 years to realize that. And it'd be even smarter for the media to get analysts who can TELL THEM THIS STUFF rather than rely upon hack political reporters with ideological axes to grind for their bylines.
Sigh. At least future historians will have an easy time of this.
(hat tip: The QandO Blog- http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2069)
This link's to Douglas Feith, the Undersecretary of Defense (for Policy), who laid out the groundwork and rules for the postwar Iraq to the Senate Foriegn Intelligence Comittee. I'm acutally suprised that no one on the committee's spoken about this stuff (or if they have, in a vocal manner): http://www.defenselink.mil/policy/speech/feb_11_03.html
The big thing with postwar planning is that you just don't know what you're going to get from the ashes, prior to the war starting. For example, in your pre-war planning you want to use building A to house the waterworks projects in Baghdad after the war, but building A's blown up during the war (for whatever reason), so much for that plan. Go find a buliding B. Realistically, building the postwar before there IS a postwar, isn't something that you're going to be able to do. You need to take an assessment AFTER the war, in order to do that. And in the end, I can't fault the Bush or Blair administrations too much for not getting everything right with the postwar planning, prior or after the war.
And it'd be wise for the media to stop playing "gotcha!" on this, when bloggers can just as easily throw eggs at their face, once again. I mean, the media has totally underestimated the Bush administration repeatedly (why should they stop?), but c'mon, there's gotta be a breaking point in their stupidity. Of course, like with Regan, it may take them over 20 years to realize that. And it'd be even smarter for the media to get analysts who can TELL THEM THIS STUFF rather than rely upon hack political reporters with ideological axes to grind for their bylines.
Sigh. At least future historians will have an easy time of this.
(hat tip: The QandO Blog- http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2069)
posted by Fafhrd1 | 2:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home