Where does the blame lie for lack of Post-War Planning? Iraq or the USA?

Question

De-Baathification

"The report, delivered to Congress, is the Bush administration's own assessment of the situation in Iraq.
But failure was registered in meeting seven benchmarks, including:


1.the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources (OIL)
2.increasing the number of Iraqi security forces able to operate independently
3.ensuring that Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against foreign forces

The report also said it was too early to assess two benchmarks - amnesty legislation and a militia disarmament programme. (After 4 years ?)

SOURCE: BBC Website....

Does this administration ever take responsibility for it's actions?

Answer 1

Ultimately, 100% of the responsibility is with the Commander in Chief, who started the war.

Answer 2

I believe Post War Planning is the responsibility of the new Iraq government but the US has the responsibility of making sure the new Iraq government is in the position to take over the decisions. I don't see any real indication the the Iraq's are putting together a real government. Sure they had their first free vote last year if I remember correctly but other then a police force do you hear anything else happening. Mind you the only news I get is from the television and that's badly tainted.
As to your final question does any administration ever take credit for it's actions?
I think Oliver North could possibly answer that question.

Answer 3

Depends on what you mean - blame for failure to create a functioning government or blame for failing to predict that the government would fail.

Iraq is responsible for their own government and how well it functions. They're responsible for any failed benchmarks.

That doesn't mean they've failed their own people. Those are our benchmarks; not theirs. In one sense, if you represent a Shiite neighborhood, you'd be terribly irresponsible to risk their safety by trusting a group that oppressed them for years. It's incredibly difficult to get different groups to take the risks that would be necessary to form a functioning government from at least three separate populations (Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds). It almost never happens.

The USA is to blame for failing to realize that an effort to form a unified democratic government would fail - if the Bush administration truly believed this had a high probability of working.

Of course, saying it was stupid to pursue something with a low probability of success is a little like saying a baseball manager is stupid for sending up a pinch hitter that only has a 33% chance of success (a player with a .333 batting average). Keep in mind, Hussein wasn't going to live forever and the odds of successfully transfering power to his sons or some one else in the Baath party were less than 50%. I think the chances for a successful transfer of power to a new dictator were better than the chances of forming a unified democratic government, but there is no upside for the first case - only risk. The second option at least has some possibility of an upside, even if its probability is lower.

Overall, between the timing (starting a new war while still dealing with Afghanistan and Bin Laden, plus a slew of other Mid East problems) and the probability that this would be a long effort that would eventually fail, I think the invasion was a really bad decision. But, I don't think it's fair to overblow just how stupid the decision was by looking at Iraq as an isolated whim. It exists inside the environment of the entire Mid East problem and a lot of times the choice is between sending up a .330 hitter that hits only singles or a power hitter with a batting average of about .190. If you're down 3 runs with a couple runners on base and 2 outs in the 9th, a single just isn't going to do the job.

I do have to give some aspect of Bush's post-war planning some serious criticism. With the chances of success so low, it was critical to put together the best team possible for the CPA that handled Iraq immediately after the invasion. The team he put together sucked and, if you looked at their resumes, no one should have expected success. With 8 years of Democratic control of the White House, the folks with the most recent experience couldn't be chosen because of their political party. You'd have to go all the way back to Bush 41's administration to find Republicans with a lot of experience and all those guys said invading Iraq was a bad idea, so that kind of ruled those guys out. All that was left were guys with a lot of book smarts but no experience. Unfortunately, there was no book for what they had to do - you needed people with enough experience to write their own instruction book.

Answer 4

it is not just the administration, but the Congress as well. Democrats and Republicans voted in favor of the war. Democrats have done nothing to help the situation, they have only whined and complained and stood in the way of improving the situation.
We lost more soldiers in a single day in WWII than in all the years in Iraq so far. We were in Germany & Japan for decades as a peacekeeping force in order to ensure that the changes we wanted to see became somewhat stable (Japan did much better as a culture than Germany did, in my opinion). Why do people think that our military can go in, topple a brutal gov't and then just be able to walk away?!? It takes alot of time (generations) to change attitudes and prejudices and to convince people that they do not have to live in constant terror of being killed for disagreeing with those in power!

Answer 5

as much as I hate to declare something effective approximately our recent regime, I do think of that each and every thing in Iraq is going in accordance to the pre-conflict plan. in the event that they keep the rustic risky they are in a position to justify construction an embassy 10 circumstances greater than the different american embassy in the international. they are in a position to additionally justify the undeniable fact that Iraq keeps to stay below the policies of profession conventional by ability of Bremmer merely after Saddam's government fell. sure. they have elected a central authority and written a shape, yet they're nonetheless ruled by ability of Bush and co and the longer the rustic remains risky, the extra ability threats to U.S. administration could be bumped off. Cheney did answer the question he asked approximately who to put in charge in case you do away with Saddam from potential. the respond is the U.S. government. The neocon pigs knew precisely what placed up-conflict Iraq could look as though and that they nonetheless get timber each and every time they think of roughly it.

Answer 6

As a 24/7 pro War Liberal I can clearly see that it is the Iraqi peoples fault.

They should have anticipated an attack from George Bush and prepared for it.

Their lack of readiness has cost countless profits and endangered the success of No Bid Contractors

Go Team Bush Go

Answer 7

The plan for post war Iraq, or any post war situation is found in the Small Wars manual of 1940.

This manual was written by the USMC, the post war period in Iraq is right out of this manual.

So the post war plan was set and is still in the process of being implemented.

There can be no failure or no blame for a work still in progress.

Answer 8

i have to give a thumbs up to bgood26. but i also want to add that the iraqi government is also failing to show any initiative regarding their post-war plan.

but at the same time, how can we expect the iraqi government to take charge of their govt. when bush clearly has no intentions of stepping aside.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-65Eukkyzp8

the next clip is just funny, because it answer your question: does this administration ever take responsibility for it's actions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5FTrdFWHxk

come on spit it out georgie, you can do it.. GOOD BOY!! but did he even answer the question?? i'm sad & embarrassed for him.

Answer 9

IT'S BUSH'S FAULT FOR IGNORING THE ADVICE OF HIS OWN MILITARY PLANNERS:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/05/iraq/main2153499.shtml
By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Nov 5, 4:48 AM ET


WASHINGTON - The U.S. government conducted a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated an invasion of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, and even then chaos might ensue.
In its "Desert Crossing" games, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence officials assumed the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.

"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground."
There are currently about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak of about 160,000 in January.

A spokeswoman for U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.

The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:


"A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."


"Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic — especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."


"Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."


"The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."


"Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."


"A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."

Answer 10

"But failure was registered in meeting seven benchmarks, including:

1.the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources (OIL)"

A moment's research will show that this is not true. The "resources" referred to here are money and the money from oil sales is being equitably distributed to the provinces. The complaint is the the benchmark requiring a law to implement the distribution of oil monies has not yet been met.

So, to summarize, Hummy: benchmark met, not in principle, but in fact. This is GOOD, right? Well, at least the Iraqis think so!

Answer 11

The US. I'm not solely sure Bush is to blame. However, the people he hired are to blame. Rumsfield is a major blame. Just how they handled the war the minute we won. We let most of the combatants go home. We didn't even collect their guns. Who in the hell does that? We did not consider the interaction of Foreign countries like Iran and possibly Russia contributing to the prolonged war against the US, and helping insurgents.