Not quite. Edit35 makes some very good points in post #81, but he omits some critical determinative factors.
He, along most other Freepers, has either forgotten or never understood that during that critical time period of March, April, and May of 2003 he referenced there were several other crucial developments and decisions by President Bush and his administration which profoundly altered the course of the war and post-war rebuilding efforts in a negative direction.
During that time period, just as our our military was completing one of the most dazzlingly successful operations in history, they lost the political battle back home over who would be in control over the next phase of operations.
You all seem to have forgotten that the original plan of both Rumsfeld and the DOD was to bring in retired General Jay Garner (who was widely respected by the Iraqis) as military governor, much as General MacArthur in post-war Japan. Garner actually arrived in Iraq and set about implementing these plans. However, back in Washington, for whatever reason, factions who were bitterly opposed to the DOD/Rumsfeld plans for post-war rebuilding (these included Colin Powell and the State Department, and elements of the CIA and NSA) managed to gain the ear of President Bush and convince him to turn over the post-war phase to them.
The result was that within 60 days of beginning his work in Iraq, General Garner was abruptly recalled and control was handed to L. Paul Bremer of the State Department. From that point on Bremer and State were calling the shots, and Rumsfeld and the DOD were under their control and subject to their operational mandates.
Bremer and his crew are the ones who made the decision to disband the Iraqi army, who allowed an Iraqi constitution subject to "Islam" to be implemented, and who made it necessary for our troops to fight TWO Battles of Fallujah. It was Bremer who personally announced, when Muqtada al Sadr was charged by the Iraqi courts with responsibility for the murder of Ayatollah al Khoi, that he would be arrested and stand trial, and then backed down and let him walk. Bremer was totally oblivious to what a tremendous loss of face and credibility he suffered as a result, and that from then on the various factions vying for power knew he could be played and rolled
This perceived pattern of weakness in Iraq itself, along with the fact that anyone in the world with a satellite dish could see that the Bush administration was demonstrating similar weakness in confronting the unrelenting efforts of its domestic critics and enemies to weaken the support of the American people for the war, was a big factor in the subsequent deterioration of the situation in Iraq, which led to the necessity for the surge.
It should never have gotten to that point, and it was not because of the number of troops. It was how they were used, and not used. It was strategic and tactical mismanagement on the part of Bremer, State and those allied factions to whom President Bush entrusted Iraq. And ultimately, it was because of failures of judgment and leadership from President Bush.
It is impossible to say whether or not "Rumsfeld's plan" for post-war Iraq was a success or failure because the actual DOD/Rumsfeld plan was aborted before it could even get underway. The plan which was implemented was a Bremer/Powell/State/CIA plan. Rumsfeld and the military had to do the dirty work and the dying, but they were always operationally subject to Bremer and his diplomats. The sad irony is that with the aid of the media and the refusal of the Bush administration to defend itself they have been able to pin their own failures on Rumsfeld...
When discussing the various failures in Iraq it is disheartening to see the degree to which Freepers have bought into the media and "domestic opposition's" meme/storyline about Iraq, and have forgotten what they saw unfold before their very eyes. But then, as the saying goes, history is written by the winners...
Yes, and your very good analysis backs up the fact that Shinisky was wrong (in March 2003) in his claim that the US would need 400,000 troops ... or whatever his inflated number was.
My theory was and still is that President Bush, once he realized that the expected stockpiles of "weapons of mass destruction" would not be found, suddenly got cold feet and began to second guess his hard-line advisers and military commanders....
Which simply encouraged US enemies both domestic and abroad to disrupt and distort the ongoing conflict at every opportunity.
The failure to find WMDs fed the egos of the anti-Bush forces in Congress and the media (are there any other kind) and suddenly Bush lost his will to fight.
The other strategic mistake in the lead up to the war was to emphasize the WMD's over and over when the argument SHOULD have been it was vital to dismantle Saddam Hussein's network of terrorist training centers (Iraq at the time harbored Abu Nidal, Abu Abazz, and many many others) and its funding and underlying cooperation with other global terror networks associated with AlQaeda.
Unfortunately, that idiot terrorist Steven Hatfill had everybody in America obsessed with anthrax... which naturally played in to the WMD narrative.
Lastly, if you want to make some quick cash with a bar bet (your target should be a Bush-hating lib), bet him or her $1,000 that Iraq was partly behind the World Trade Center attack.
Well, of course every lib Democrat KNOWS that it was 19 SAUDI's who flew those planes into the WTC ... and thus your patsy will likely jump at the chance to agree to your $1,000 bet.
The trap is sprung.
Then you whip out the court transcripts proving that Iraq had indeed supplied a passport and other help ... FOR THE 1993 WTC ATTACK, which killed six people and failed to topple the towers.
People tend to forget the significant role Saddam Hussein played in the 1993 WTC attacks.