PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. “At the time, I assumed that such planning had been done–it seemed an obvious and vital part of the process, and as such I thought that trained professionals at the highest levels of government would think about such things”

    You seem like a smart person. Why in the world would you have had this assumption as your default? Part of the democratic process is consistently questioning those in power–a la Mill. It would seem that Americans would be better served by hanging their ideological predispositions at the door and DEMAND HONEST ANSWERS from political elites before we get into such quagmires as those we currently find ourselves in.

    Comment by Gdshf — Tuesday, February 28, 2006 @ 8:03 pm

  2. I would like to think that any administration, regardless of ideological persuasion, that purposefully undertakes a policy of nation building would plan for these contingencies. It has nothing to do with not demanding answers or anything of the sort. One is only going to get so much information from an administration during the hostilities.

    Given the resumes of Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Cheney, it was not too much to ask to have expected better.

    Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Tuesday, February 28, 2006 @ 8:10 pm

  3. Agreed, planning for post-invasion was poor, if not non-existent. What is overlooked in this discussion is the intelligence failure. We believed that there were weapons of mass destruction, and we believed there would be massive uprisings in the cities as we crossed the border, and we believed Iraqis would quickly rally behind the exiled leaders. The trend is that the administration made a series of bad decisions because it was fed bad information and given bad advice by their “experts”.

    If you want to get partisan, one can easily say that the intelligence apparatus that led to the invasion of Iraq was the same intelligence community that the previous administration created by cutting it’s budget by 50% over 8 years, the CIA director was appointed by Clinton, etc. No leader can be expected to make good decisions when he or she is presented with bad information.

    With all that being said, there should have been a better plan for post invasion. There is nothing wrong with questioning those in power, but it is easy to do so after the fact. Can very many people honestly say that before the invasion they were screaming, “What is the plan for after the invasion? We DEMAND HONEST ANSWERS!” If anyone failed, it would be those people.

    Comment by bg — Tuesday, February 28, 2006 @ 10:31 pm

  4. [...] re in Iraq, Redux
    By Dr. Steven Taylor @ 6:13 am

    Yesterday I wrote two posts (here and here that dealt with the SIGIR report on post-war planning for Iraq. As a point of clarific [...]

    Pingback by PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Failure in Iraq, Redux — Wednesday, March 1, 2006 @ 6:15 am

  5. “Can very many people honestly say that before the invasion they were screaming, “What is the plan for after the invasion? We DEMAND HONEST ANSWERS!” If anyone failed, it would be those people.”


    Millions of people were asking these questions. Do you not remember the massive global protests on 15 Feb 2003? Bush discounted the arguments made by many of these critics as those of a “focus group.”

    Within the State Department these issues were brought up, but Bush and Rumsfeld summarily ignored their reports. In fact, Rumsfeld directly told Jay Garner NOT TO READ the State Department reports! This is absurd and should be grounds for Rumsfeld’s immediate dismissal–of course, he serves at the pleasure of the President and the President hasn’t got a clue.

    The “intelligence failure” argument is also a bunch of BS. Hans Blix was quite clear in saying that any WMD program in Iraq was inconsequential.

    Comment by akjklja — Wednesday, March 1, 2006 @ 8:26 am

  6. [...] en Taylor @ 4:58 pm

    WFB is all over Bush and the Iraq policy. First it was the “it’s a failure” column earlier this week, and now another one: NEXT STEP.


    Pingback by PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Buckley on Bush and Iraq — Wednesday, March 1, 2006 @ 4:59 pm

  7. Steven, the planning WAS done. I know some scholars who were involved. The State Dept. held conference after conference with political scientists, sociologists, economists, historians, and leaders of the Iraqi exile community–and this was before there were any public declarations from Bush regarding the impending war. The conferences were all about what happens when states are dismembered, what are the lessons from Japan, Germany, and other postwar occupations, and how to rebuild a state and a government afterwards.

    The Bush administration made a specific political decision to turn the postwar process over to Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, and other political appointees attached to Defense or the White House, and sideline State and the experts in exactly what they were about to undertake.

    It was not a lack of planning. It was a political desire to ignore the planning that had been done. They did not like the results of the studies, or the costs attached to them. They were driven by an ideological agenda, and were not going to let experts, or the hard facts presented by them, to stand in the way.

    Comment by Matthew — Thursday, March 2, 2006 @ 9:44 am

  8. Lovely.

    I am aware that Larry Diamond was involved in the inital post-war work on democratization and quit in frustration.

    Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, March 2, 2006 @ 10:41 am

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.185 Powered by Wordpress