A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
May 08, 2007Iraq Postwar Management Mistakes BlogThere's been some discussion of this recently, and I've been wanting to blog on this myself. There's an interesting article here. I read the last book of Churchill's WWII book a little out of order to see what he does to plan for occupations. He expected to put serious numbers of troops on the ground even after the war was over, and to have to stay there awhile, even in the friendly Netherlands, because, of course, there would be no magic tokens against opportunistic disorder cropping up. He expected himself and his staff to have increasingly detailed plans on how many troops, where they'd come from, implications of who would provide them (e.g., bad results of Soviet occupations of Eastern Europe), transport implications, etc.. He expected plans to be well thought out, in detail, before they were executed, preferably with preparation for problems. I'd say Rumsfeld's war plan lived up pretty well. To me, as war plans and executions go, it was pretty good. The utter lack of postwar plans, for politics or to stop disorder, are where I and many others hand him an 'F.' OK, let's take a digression into management style. Churchill's management style in WWII, which seems to've served him well, was to ask lots of questions about details to many people, and consult widely, but mostly only issue orders on a few big things, and on schedules. In WWI, he more kept his orders and questions to big topics and a smaller circle, and, though he did alot of good at his post as First Lord of the Admiralty (coal->oil, gun size increment raised), he also served up the famous disaster of Gallipoli. ISTR also a failure to prevent a bad design mistake that led to the Hood and several other nasty warship explosions. Rumsfeld appears to've been a micromanager. A good micromanager can be of some use (e.g., Jobs' Apple Computer), but can really only deal with one problem or product at a time (Apple II, iMac, iPhone). I still think the war plan was pretty good, as they go, for the war part. But wars are more complicated than Jobs' products. You have to plan for EVERYTHING, not just the interesting bit, or people die. Bush appears to be a big-question-manager. He was pretty persistent at dealing with getting a usable occupation political system going. By my count, he went to Plan D (A: let Iraqis instantly self-organize in a shout, B: Garner, C: Bremer, D: Allawi) to Iraqi constitution and self-rule). According to Fiasco, Rumsfeld urged plans A, B, and C. Instant democratic self-organization has only worked where an elected leader was tossed out of power in under ten years. Absent that, that kind of plan has never worked anyplace, anywhere, and, as Fiasco put it, it's clear that neither Garner nor Bremer were up to the job. They were people Rumsfeld was comfortable with rather than capable men. Bush' fatal error, shared by Rumsfeld and many others, is that he let security get fatally bad. BIG mistake. He should've assigned somebody to read Iraqi blogs, do surveys, check mortality levels, or otherwise check that security plans were working out. There was no shortage of evidence. The White House has been known to read blogs at least occasionally. Are readers of Iraqi blogs out of the loop there? The problem, also documented persuasively in Fiasco, is that Rumsfeld insisted no occupation would be needed, the Iraqi people could take care of themselves. Tribes could protect themselves with their militias until a police force was formed. The huge US force would confine itself to fighting back against those who fired at / delivered bombs against us. That's yet another thing that's never worked anyplace, anywhere, because gangsters/opportunists like Al'Sadr show up. That's why Churchill was even planning to garrison the Netherlands. If this sort of innovation is tried, you have to have watch carefully that it really works and have a Plan B. Neither was provided for. You'd think that the changes in viceroyship ideas would've given a chance to think about if the security self-organization was actually working (clarly only for the gangs, even then). You know, it's scary how many people STILL don't understand the security failures. Most conservatives still buy Bush' pinning of it all on Al'Qaeda. Even many military people don't see what's up, thinking it's about a failure in anti-insurgency plans. But no. Al'Qaeda is not so much a big to threat to Iraqis on the street or to the government. Or even to our soldiers, despite the heavy news coverage of it. I fear terribly for when Petraeus moves on. Unless Gates chooses somebody similarly smart for Iraq, who can look at events on the street and form the right conclusions, Iraq is in trouble. And maybe even then, becase there's vanishingly little political support for the facts in DC. In the White House or outside. On either side of the aisle. More on that soon. I'm also fearful that politics will make Petraeus move on early. Posted by Jon Kay at May 8, 2007 01:44 AMComments
My first conversation with Pat was about our failure to objectively review metrics. I argued that evidence was everywhere that trouble was ahead. You and Ricks bring up similar points, but judging from national surveys that claim most Americans do not even want to redeploy our troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, our problems spring from popular allied apathy and denial. In preparing for future wars, I wonder if we are thinking clearly. The Office of Transformation is officially closed. When I have some time, I will add a few links about neutron bombs. They are a good example of what other nations are doing to prepare for future wars. If we are not prepared to destroy facilites under ground, our generals will be facing threats in a war, past generals never saw: a war waged by clandestine terrorists armed with WMD. Posted by: Maxtrue at May 8, 2007 08:39 AMI ran across this And then today, this It made me think how much easier it was for Winston. AQ is indeed a threat in Iraq. There are also other elements all cast into a tribal and religious demographic with numerous foreign nationals and jihadists entering the picture. You also have arms merchants and former Iraqi military and their thugs with sources of weapons. You have a criminal underground selling oil and gasoline. It is hard to create a government powerful enough to police its own disorder. We see this in Lebanon. Moderate Serbs even worry about extremists taking root in Kosovo. There is a need for moderate Islam to stand up. There is also an urgency to defend those who are willing to fight themselves for a situation where Muslim and Westerners can live side by side in peace. We do see a more centrist Germany, France, England and Canada. We see a UN willing to blast Syria for its refusal to participate in investigations of murder and to stop arming Hizb'Allah. We see Europe become our closest trading partner and join us in Afghanistan and the opposition to an Iranian nuke. We see a steady flow of idiotic statements from Iran, Hamas and even the Brotherhood. We see resistance in Europe to Russian and Chinese behavior. We see other worried faces looking at Chevez besides our own. Yet amazingly enough, Democrats would rather talk about our urgent need to redeploying to America, consider Iraq as lost and Iran in basically de facto possession of the bomb. Significant numbers of Democrats declare Bush knew OBL was going to attack the US and "let" him. Perhaps this the the compromise between Chomsky and those even more Far Left. How can we be governed at a time like this by a leadership that is unwilling to tell the truth about what is actually happening in the world? So much of the truth has been Liberally censored for fear of aiding the enemy (which are Republicans that haven't turned on Bush)? While I am under no constraint to be smart OR Liberal, I am sad about the effect this rabidness is going to cost us in strategic disadvantage. My only glimmer is that Hillary pushed Bill to bomb Serbia. She might see her destiny in proving American women can be tough in the face of threats to her village. I do not see her overseeing our strategic retreat or turning away from those who insult us. Electing a woman to lead is a Muslim outrage to extremists. I so much want to hear the Republicans accusing her of using force instead of diplomacy, or using fear to polarize politics. Then again, she could pull a Bill and lead us into the Tabloids for four years. So I will see what comes to my plate. Events may show what character these candidates have and we as a Freedom-loving people. Time will also show what character of those we are defending which is the crucial part of security in the absence of totalitarianism. Scared you with that threat of Neutron bombs? Also this relates to security and future stability. We discussed this in another thread. This points to the situation in Kurdistan I posted links to a few weeks back. I suggested slowing the Kirkuk referendum and pressuring Malaki with bases in Kurdistan. AQ struck the Kurds with help Intel suggests was from Iran. Is it clearer that AQ and Sadr, both get some help from Iran? We need to be fluid with options and use whatever it takes to push proto-federalism before politics pulls the plug. There is some irony here. Churchill was concerned about Post War Europe. Today another security problem is related to WWll and the failure to manage post war security. . First, The origin of the Muslim Brotherhood If you flip through this site’s records, one can see how many Nazis escaped to Egypt after the war. It is not hard to connect the dots all the way to Saddam and the culture he created among the Sunni elite. We can see a direct link between the Nazis, the Muslim Brotherhood and Saddam. Our Post War plan supposed moderate Shiites would form a moderate Majoritarianism teaming up with the Kurds who wanted a loose Federalism. We would help crush the Sunni Triangle though our numbers did not suggest that without wholesale massacre. Many forget the intellectual push to disband the army and de-Baathify the country. Despite the Sunnis insurgency and infiltration by Sunni AQ, some still argue against too much pressure on Malaki. Still, Democrats want to pressure Malaki more while others say its over and project a partition can somehow lead to peace. Others call a Sunni-Kurdish alliance wishful thinking. True many Sunnis groups come out of the Saddam tradition. These people found gassing Kurds quite easy. Kurds are not likely to forget the ideology that founds roots in the Ottomans and Nazis. Still, a number of intellectuals dismiss the deadlock the Kurds created in rejecting a future with Shiite death squads or marginalized Sunnis blowing up the country, and opt for majority rule while demanding Malaki over rule such a majority and somehow force a unity government. Yes, they point fingers at the Kurds while demanding Malaki throw out the Constitution. Perhaps we can view the Sunni-Kurdish alliance as a convergence in tactics against AQ, Saddam's former supporters and the unrestrained hegemony of the Shia. In light of our options, I think there might be some influence we can assert to help a Sunni-Kurdish alliance without destroying Malaki. Slowing the referendum, reestablishing bases in Kurdistan, the invitation to the Turks, the growing hatred of AQ by Sunnis and an oil agreement threat can all send a warning shot to the Shia. We could even help Sunnis militias willing to honor a Sunni-Kurdish alliance. Nationalists are different than Baathists. Helping nationalists work together to create proto-Federalism while retaining their right to object to the Constitution (Sunnis were promised changes would be made) might pressure the Shia enough to the table. I am sure we are trying to find every Sunni militia in favor of real Federalism and against AQ and the Brotherhood. Tall order. Kirkuk oil might be a key to this interim alliance. One thing is certain, Iraqis are free to decide their destiny far sooner than the Germans or Japanese. It took a while for resistance to fade. The roots of Nazis (socialist, nationalist, ant-Semitic and dictatorial) and Saddam's predicted nexus with WMD and terror led us into Iraq where we now face a similar post war resistance in the form of a new extremist ideology. Unlike the exclusiveness of the Nazis, this ideology can grow through simple conversion. I suppose if civil war really cuts loose, Malaki can assume martial law. I just don't see him taking the iron hand approach. Okay Jon, I'm about dried up on this one.
I ask everyone, especially Democrats and Liberals to give this speech another look. Remember, two years later the CIA helped remove the Iraqi leader because of the worry he would work too closely with the Soviets. This led the way for Saddam and his Muslim version of the NAZI creed. I believe the Left has moved further left. The media spends more time questioning the informer of the Ft. Dix plotters than the terrorists themselves. At almost every instance, major media mutes any evidence we are engaged in a struggle as dangerous as the one JFK lead against the Communists. Security is best served when a Free people understand the stakes. We did not do this in Iraq. We do not do this when we capitulate with the Brotherhood or other extremists. Imagine the results of giving the Japanese or the Germans, Europe and the Russians a timetable for our departure from the world shortly after the Iron Curtain descended. Some of the blame today falls squarely on the American people for forgetting the words of past leaders and substituting the rhetoric of those Americans traditionally most opposed to our leadership and sacrifice in the world. For those who think Muslims don’t object to the tyranny imposed on them for decades, consider this Mickey Mouse for those of you watching TDS and wondered what was really said by that young girl. Sunnis are standing up to AQ. It is hard to address security without the broader picture. Mistakes were made, but the levers extend beyond Iraq in both the historical roots of violence and the groups that are battling. Without determination by American leadership, the situation may fall into deeper chaos. I hope this hasn’t fallen far from the original post and that the links provided are informative. airfares rome |
Archives
June 2008
May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Irish Blogger Charged For Blogging
Friday open thread Headline: Obama and Clinton Together in Unity There Is No EPA Document, There Is No EPA Document Only The Party In Power Need Apply Prosecutions? Can McCain claim the Ron Paul votes? Why We Worry About China Too Much Newseek Slams "Obama's Lame Excuse" Open Thread: What Annoyed You Most Reading Books?
|
