A president without a plan is no president at all
Kevin Drum linked yesterday to a post by Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy regarding "a remarkable interview with Brigadier General Mark Scheid, chief of the Logistics War Plans Division after 9/11, and one of the people with primary responsibility for war planning".
According to General Scheid, Rumsfeld's "plan" for the Iraq War was essentially to go in, take out Saddam, and leave. That was it. There was no planning for a possible occupation of Iraq after the fall of Saddam's regime, and, indeed, Rumsfeld said he would "fire the next person" who said there ought to be.
I agree with Kevin that "this is old news". However: "The guy who was actually in charge of logistics has now directly confirmed that Rumsfeld not only didn't intend to rebuild Iraq in any serious way, but threatened to fire anyone who wasted time on the idea."
More: "[T]his also means that all of Bush's talk about democracy was nothing but hot air. If you're serious about planting democracy after a war, you don't plan to simply topple a government and then leave... The bulk of the evidence continues to suggest that democracy and rebuilding were simply not on Bush's radar."
The interview can be found in, of all places, the Hampton Roads (Virginia) Daily Press. It deserves more attention. It proves what we already knew, or suspected, but does so in such a way as to lay the blame squarely at Rumsfeld's, and by extension Bush's, feet.
When will Rumsfeld -- when will Bush himself -- be held responsible for what has gone so badly wrong in Iraq?
According to General Scheid, Rumsfeld's "plan" for the Iraq War was essentially to go in, take out Saddam, and leave. That was it. There was no planning for a possible occupation of Iraq after the fall of Saddam's regime, and, indeed, Rumsfeld said he would "fire the next person" who said there ought to be.
I agree with Kevin that "this is old news". However: "The guy who was actually in charge of logistics has now directly confirmed that Rumsfeld not only didn't intend to rebuild Iraq in any serious way, but threatened to fire anyone who wasted time on the idea."
More: "[T]his also means that all of Bush's talk about democracy was nothing but hot air. If you're serious about planting democracy after a war, you don't plan to simply topple a government and then leave... The bulk of the evidence continues to suggest that democracy and rebuilding were simply not on Bush's radar."
The interview can be found in, of all places, the Hampton Roads (Virginia) Daily Press. It deserves more attention. It proves what we already knew, or suspected, but does so in such a way as to lay the blame squarely at Rumsfeld's, and by extension Bush's, feet.
When will Rumsfeld -- when will Bush himself -- be held responsible for what has gone so badly wrong in Iraq?
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
8:34 AM
9 Comments:
Amazing huh? My eyes just about bugged out of my head. It was in the Washington Post under "Washington in Brief," short column, buried in the middle of the A-section. I had to highlight it on my blog.
By
J., at 9:44 AM
If Sheid is correct in his comment about win and leave being the policy, why didn't happen that way? IF the quote is correct, then Rumsfeld must have been overuled by someone, perhaps the President. Or, of course Scheid could be just another Joe Wilson, seeing the past that didn't happen.
By
Anonymous, at 11:39 AM
Hey, Anonymous troll, go back to your lunatic fringe blogs.
By
Anonymous, at 11:51 AM
Wait a minute, so the leftys, who didn't want the US in Iraq in the first place, are now complaining that the Sec of Def wanted to leave to early.
But I don't understand. I thought the PNAC clearly outlined the plan for the Iraq invasion.
So which is it? Was there a Plaaaaaaaaaaaann or not?
"be held responsible for what has gone so badly wrong in Iraq?"
Yes, yes, so badly wrong. A new democratically elected govt and the former tyrant on trial for war crimes. Amazing-- you guys fantasize that this happens in the US (Dems win 2006/8; Bush impeached), yet when it happen in Iraq is bad.
By
Anonymous, at 2:10 PM
"A President without a plan is no president at all."
--- Great quote ... That's exactly why John sKerry, the Frenchurian Candidate, didn't get elected.
It's also why the Deceit Nonsenes and Corruption party (DNC) will lose this November's elections.
Democrats have no plans except to take power over this country.
That's not sufficient for the American Republic.
By
Anonymous, at 2:26 PM
I hope I won't offend any of you republicans, but there are some facts your ignoring. I hope using that four letter word is permitted.
First, we know from Frank's book that he got to Phase IV in his briefing of W, the VP and Sec Deaf, and all it said was "to be provided later."
Not "Not needed, we'll be out," but "later dude."
We know Rummy told the public that he didn't know how long the war would last. "Maybe six days, or six weeks. Definitely not six months." That was three years ago.
Some of us with memories also remember right after the war comments from the Sec Deaf that we'd be down to 30,000 troops in six months. But those 30,000 would be there for a while.
Now that could met both of the possible ways of looking at this general's comments.
The American people won't support us in getting into something long, so let's not tell them.
Or
Intel sources like Chalabi tell us it will be a cake walk. We'll install him as the new Saddam and then he'll let us set up our permanent bases. No big thing.
Only Chalabi was being paid by the Iranians to tell Bush just what he wanted to hear and Iraq has turned into a "Big Thing," Americans are dying and the only country to gain from our little invasion is Iran.
Bush has never had a plan. He's had a couple of pipe dreams that never worked out and now, planless, all he can ask us to do is leave our troops in a civil war, taking fire from both sides while Bush counts the days until he can leave office without ever admitting how badly he has ruined the standing of the United States in the world.
Read Kerry's speach today. You'll see a plan. If you have eyes to see.
Mike Moscoe
By
Anonymous, at 6:20 PM
Thank you all for your comments -- even those of you on the right who don't much care for my perspective.
Mike Moscoe, in particular, makes some excellent points.
Anonymous #2: There was a plan all along to invade Iraq and to depose Saddam. PNAC was pushing it during the Clinton years, as well as early in W's first term. That's not the point here. It may or may not have been a good idea to invade in the first place, but there was clearly insufficient planning, if planning at all, for what would happen next. Remember that, justified or not, the invasion itself went quite well. Saddam's forces largely melted away (and turned into the core of the insurgency), Baghdad fell, etc. The problems have come since the fall of Saddam's regime. A bit of planning would have been nice.
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 12:58 AM
Oh, for those of you who don't think the Democrats have a plan, see here:
http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2006/08/democrats-and-iraq.html
It's the common Republican spin that Democrats have no plan, but in fact they have much more of a plan than Republicans do (and the GOP essentially wants to stay the course even if the course has led to disaster -- what kind of a plan is that?), and have had for a good long time.
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 1:06 AM
For a quick link, click here:
Democrats and Iraq
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 1:09 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home