Look Who's Linking to PoliBlog:
Absinthe and Cookies
Accidental Verbosity
Admiral Quixote's Roundtable
All Day Permanent Red
All Things Jennifer
Ann Althouse
The American Mind
Arguing with signposts
Arms and influence
The Astute Blogger
Asymmeterical Information
B-Town Blog Boys
Backcountry Conservative
Balloon Juice
Bananas and Such Begging to Differ
The Bemusement Park
Bewtween the Coasts
Betsy's Page
The Big Picture
Blogs for Bush
The Blog of Daniel Sale
Boots and Sabers
The Bully Pulpit
Cadillac Tight
Caffeinated Musing
California Yankee
Captain's Quarters
Chicago Report
Chicagoland of Confusion
Citizen Smash
Collected Thoughts
The Command Post
Common Sense and Wonder
Confessions Of A Political Junkie
The Conservative Philosopher
Conservative Revolution
Conservative and Right
Cranial Cavity
The Daily Lemon
Daly Thoughts
DANEgerus Weblog
Dart Frog on a Cactus
Dean's World Dear Free World
Brad DeLong
Democracy Project
The Disagreeable Conservative Curmudgeon
Down to the Piraeus
Drink this...
Earl's log
Earthly Passions
The Education Wonks
the evangelical outpost
Eye of the Storm
Firepower Forward
The Flying Space Monkey Chronicles
The Friendly Ghost
Fruits and Votes
Functional, if not decorative
The Galvin Opinion
The Glittering Eye
Haight Speech
The Hedgehog Report
Heh. Indeed.
Hennessy's View
High Desert Skeptic
The Hillary Project
History and Perceptions
Robert Holcomb
I love Jet Noise
Idlewild South
Independent Thinker
Insults Unpunished
Internet Ronin
Ipse Dixit
It Can't Rain All The Time...
The Jay Blog
Jen Speaks
Joefish's Freshwater Blog
John Lemon blog
Judicious Asininity
Jump In, The Water's Fine!
Just On The Other Side
A Knight's Blog
The Kudzu Files
Let's Try Freedom
Liberty Father
Life and Law
David Limbaugh
Locke, or Demosthenes?
Mad Minerva
Gary Manca
Mark the Pundit
Mediocre but Unexciting
Mental Hiccups
Miller's Time
Mind of Mog
Minorities For Bush
Mr. Hawaii
The Moderate Voice
The Modulator
Much Ado
Mungowitz End
My opinion counts
my thoughts, without the penny charge
My Word
Neophyte Pundit
Neutiquam erro
New England Republican
NewsHawk Daily
neWs Round-Up
No Pundit Intended
Nobody asked me, but...
Obsidian Wings
Occam's Toothbrush
On the Fritz
On the Third Hand
One Fine Jay
Out of Context
Outside the Beltway
Suman Palit
Passionate America
Brian Patton
Peppermint Patty
John Pierce
The Politicker
The Politburo Diktat
Political Annotation
Political Blog For The Politically Incorrect
Power Politics
Practical Penumbra
Priorities & Frivolities
Prof. Blogger's Pontifications
Pros and Cons
protein wisdom
Pundit Heads
The Queen of All Evil
Quotes, Thoughts, and other Ramblings
Ramblings' Journal
Random Acts of Kindness
Random Nuclear Strikes
Ranting Rationalist
Read My Lips
Reagan Country
Red State Diaries
A Republican's Blog
The Review
Rhett Write
Right Side of the Rainbow
Right Wingin-It
Right Wing News
Right Voices
Rightward Reasonings
riting on the wall
Rooftop Report
The Sake of Argument
Sailor in the Desert
Secular Sermons
Sha Ka Ree
Shaking Spears
She Who Will Be Obeyed!
The Skeptician
The Skewed
Slobokan's Site O' Schtuff
small dead animals
Sneakeasy's Joint
SoCal Law Blog
A Solo Dialogue
Some Great Reward
Southern Musings
Speed of Thought...
Spin Killer
Matthew J. Stinson
A Stitch in Haste
Stop the ACLU
The Strange Political Road Trip of Jane Q. Public
The Strata-Sphere
Stuff about
Suman Palit
Target Centermass
Templar Pundit
The Temporal Globe
Tex the Pontificator
Texas Native
think about it...
Tobacco Road Fogey
Toner Mishap
Tony Talks Tech
The Trimblog
Truth. Quante-fied.
Twenty First Century Republican
Unlocked Wordhoard
Use The Forks!!
Ut Humiliter Opinor
Vista On Current Events
Vox Baby
Jeff Vreeland's Blog
Wall of Sleep
Weapons of Mass Discussion
Who Knew?
The Window Manager
Winning Again!
WizBang Tech
The World Around You
The Yin Blog
You Big Mouth, You!
Zygote-Design - Alabama Weblogs

AJC's 2004 Election Politics Sites and Blogs
Campaign Finance
Welcome to World O' Blogs
WRKO-AM's "Political Junkies" list
Yahoo! Directory Political Weblogs
Young Elephant

Who Links Here

Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Failure in Iraq
By Dr. Steven Taylor @ 1:28 pm

Wrote William F. Buckley in his column of yesterday:

One can’t doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.

And via the CSM we find excerpts from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR)’s report that discusses the almost nonexistent planning for post-invasion Iraq.

The CSM overview points to an AP story in WaPo that notes that what should have been basic issues were not addressed:

Thanks to inadequate planning, the report said, early occupation officials lacked enough reconstruction staffers who knew what they were doing.


“Pre-war reconstruction planning assumed that Iraq’s bureaucracy would go back to work when the fighting stopped,” it said. “When it became clear that the Iraqi bureaucracy was in widespread disarray,” occupation authorities “had to find coalition personnel to perform these tasks.”

“The U.S. government workforce planning for Iraq’s reconstruction suffered from a poorly structured, ad-hoc personnel management processes,” the report said, calling hiring practices “haphazard.”

If this policy was going to work, there needed to be serious planning about what to do once the invasion was successful. 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-it appears my assumptions were incorrect and my confidence in some of the key actors misplaced.

I have thought for some time now that the looting that was allowed in Baghdad severely hampered governing the country, now it is clear that the problem was even worse: the war planners seemed not to understand that getting rid of Saddam and the Baath party elites was going to cause substantial disruption to an already poorly run state.

Instead, we let that poorly run state apparatus be take apart in chaotic looting, and then did not have a plan to deal with either the bureaucracy or the infrastructural problems.

I used to think that the administration’s unwillingness to talk about a long-term commitment to Iraq was born out of political exigency, but now it would seem that they really did think that we could go in, topple Saddam, hang around for a little while, and then leave-as if the whole thing was only a military operation. Back to the CSM piece, quoting a WaTi article:

The report also quotes a senior Pentagon official as saying that “the US government was not systemically structured to execute overseas reconstruction and stabilization programs.” And pre-invasion planning was “naturally focused on military requirements.”

All well and good, but wasn’t it blatantly obvious from the beginning that conquering Iraq wasn’t the hard part, that building a viable democratic (even quasi-democratic) state was the hard part? It is one think to assume that people want to be free and self-governing, it is another to just come off the dictator and then hope that everything else comes together. Granted: we didn’t just get Saddam and leave, but how much better could the last three years have been had we actually planned for the post-war situation?


  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

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

The trackback url for this post is:

NOTE: I will delete any TrackBacks that do not actually link and refer to this post.

Leave a comment

Take a Look At This!

Visitors Since 2/15/03

PoliBlog is the Host site for:

A TTLB Community


Business Associates

Finance Answers

Health Benefits

Beach Homes

Car Shopping


Powered by WordPress