Describe the parameters of what a proper "plan for post-war Iraq" might have looked like. Be as detailed as possible. And then with each detail you list, I'll point out how your "plan" would likely have been rendered D.O.A. by events on the ground.
And what part of your "plan" would have prevented the Sunni minority from embracing terror-insurgency? Too often, these mystical "plan" things are spoken of as if the right, carefully-calculated "plan" can somehow engineer the behavior of other humans. I am skeptical of a standard of "planning" by which it is considered to be evidence of "bad planning" on our part if some foreigners make decision X instead of decision Y. What foreigners decide to do or not do is beyond our control; it is how we react and adjust, which we can control.
"Plans" are overrated. Adjustments are what is important. Now maybe Rummy can be criticized for not having adjusted quickly enough, but you have not done so here, and regardless, this war has been one of the most successful in human history, so forgive me for not being too swayed by Monday morning quarterbacking.
I support Bush and the initial war, but his policies and PR in winning the peace has been a disaster.
I certainly will not insist that Bush has the best PR team in the world. But you must acknowledge that with a hostile media and a left determined to paint any and all circumstance (including victory) as failure, Bush could have had the best PR team in the world and it still wouldn't have mattered. Anyway, that is not a real criticism of the conduct of the counter-insurgency. You don't seem to have a real criticism of the conduct of the counter-insurgency.
Well said.
GWB has had to fight the WOT and the press every step of the way. IMO the press are the worst kind of scum because they are invested in our defeat.
There shouldn't have been a "plan for post-war Iraq." The idea of having a war and then building your enemy back up is ridiculous. Truman did it, but only to keep the Soviets from taking over in Japan and Germany.
Here is what the plan SHOULD have been:
Invade.
Destroy Baghdad.
Kill Saddam.
Kill his sons.
Execute the generals we know were guilty of warcrimes.
Leave.
The longer we stay in Iraq, the worse it's going to get.
Exactly! And that is what the administration failed to do, take into account a range of possible Iraqi reactions and make contingency plans. Instead, the war was sold as quick, our military welcomed as liberators, and the war was to virtually pay for itself with oil revenues.
If the war is now perceived as a failure, its because reality hasn't matched administration pre-war PR.
Further, the administration failed to notice that rules of occupation as specified in the Hague Regulations (signed onto by the US) say that occupying forces "shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct." In other words, the administration's planned privatization of Iraqi assets could not legally take place until a new Iraqi constitution and government was in place to authorized it.
While the administration failed to notice, or decided to ignore the rules, potential investors did not. Privatization and economic development has been stalled because any investment or sale under those conditions can be declared void and subject to seizure, unless, of course we successfully set up a puppet government willing to carry out US plans. But where is the freedom in that? Isn't freedom really the ability to decide for ourselves what's good for us?