Pentagon Institute: Iraq War "A Major Debacle," Outcome "Is In Doubt"

McClatchy DC:

The war in Iraq has become "a major debacle" and the outcome "is in doubt" despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute.

The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush's projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions.

Read the whole story: McClatchy DC

Comments

[ChimpmasterDJ]

"Outcome in doubt"??? The outcome was NEVER in doubt!

"I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force [....] it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."—Cheney, April 29, 1991

[jjhayes]

Just starting reading through the paper itself, which will take more time than I have at this public access computer, but there is something that perhaps should be noted which may bear on the question of Senator Clinton's vote for authorization, and Senator Obama's speaking against the war.

The paper reminds us that the core belief of the foreign policy community including the Clinton administration at the time was that Saddam possessed WMD's. It was probably the most plausible and reasonable conclusion that Saddam possessed WMD's and was willing to use them. Though as a mere reader of newspapers and television I had no direct information either way, and neither did most people, it did not seem reasonable to insist that he didn't have them. Thus when talking about decisions with respect to the war, we should imagine that WMD's were found. Would that change our judgment on the judgments of the past?

Also, it may be that judgment was not at issue, but rather principle. If an offensive war of this type is illegal and unjust then that is not necessarily a judgment call. To phrase it as a judgment implies that such an offensive war is in principle acceptable but that our judgment on the facts differed. So does phrasing opposition to the war as proper judgment, rather blur the distinction between the candidates., implying that the war was merely a strategic error, not in principle unjust, illegal and unacceptable?

[msmaggie]

I think it's pretty clear that it was both a matter of poor judgment and shoddy principles. There is a lot of blur between those particular lines though. For instance, when you base your judgments on one-sided, limited information, you make poor judgments but I think also are walking away from principle.

How many angels I guess.

[lippp]

WE HAD OUR WEAPONS INPECTORS IN IRAG TELLING US THEY DID NOT BELIEVE THERE WERE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND THEY WANTED MORE TIME TO VERIFY THAT. BUT BUSH DID NOT WANT TO HEAR THIS. SO WHEN ARE WE GOING TO INDICT BUSH FOR ATTACKING A COUNTRY THAT WAS NOT A THREAT TO US ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE MAIMED AND KILLED.

[jjhayes]

I also guess we have to assume that any information coming at us, perhaps especially in time of war or the call to war, is going to be one-sided and limited, so then we need some kind of principle for how to make judgments on the only information we're getting, which may or may not be complete. It is amazing how in the end it actually comes down to having to believe other people at some point. I'm not sure its how many angels, exactly. But it's a tedious slow process (unless you come to the conclusion that even based on this biased information there is not enough to go to war) and maybe demanding more time so that judgments can be better made is precisely the principle that was needed. I think we were pretty much in agreement at the time that Saddam's development of the smoking mushroom cloud gun was years in the future. It was certainly more than a few extra months away.

[wmbear]

I LOVE IT...

That we have such brilliant minds guiding the course of U.S. military policy....

[msmaggie]

What an odd thing to say. I suspect you would love it a lot less if you had a family member in the military. It's profoundly unfunny.

[wmbear]

WELL, I ***WAS*** BEING SARCASTIC...

I certainly respect the troops serving in Iraq and want to "support" them by bringing them home from a botched occupation and out of harms way. I profoundly do not understand how "supporting the troops" means keeping them in Iraq until it becomes obvious even to types like Bush and Cheney that there is no possibility of "winning" this occupation.

And for the Pentagon to conclude after five years of this botched occupation (botched because it followed on an illegal invasion that should never have taken place in the first place), that the U.S. is looking at a major debacle in Iraq -- Well, excuse my sarcasm, but I WAS out in the streets in 2002 protesting what anyone could see was Bush intention to invade Iraq come hell or high water....

[HumeSkeptic]

It's sarcasm, msmaggie. It's like saying "Great!" if Bush says he's going to appoint Pat Robertson as his Science Advisor.

wmbear is a good guy.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Heads are gonna roll!

[HumeSkeptic]

Major Debacle reports to General Petroleus.

[wmbear]

LOL!

That's a goodie. I especially like "General Pertoleus."

[dwillisno1]

Assisted by Privates Lubrication.

[Grannysue]

Gee McShame will have to get some new talking points, whatever will the GOPERS and NEOCONS do, I know, invade Iran!

[CarolinaDem]

They're STILL in delusion, even as they write this reality-sensing report.
Notice that it says 'as many as 82,000 civilian Iraqi dead' when that number counts only the bodies that got to the morgues, and it says "No one has calculated the cost" of the things like the after care of injured vets. Do they not even read the American newspapers where people like Dr Stiglitz estimate quite serious numbers for such analysis?

Apparently the military only talk to other military. There's a problem.

[msmaggie]

Do not group the military in with the Bush bunch, that's a serious mistake. And it's doing exactly what Bush et al want us to do, equate them with the military. The military deserves better than being painted with the same brush as these numbnuts.

[serialcoma]

As a retired military officer I can assure you, from experience, that the military is not whole-heartedly pro-bush, pro-republican or pro-war. They are merely doing the job they swore to do as soldiers, sailors and airmen. For the most part they serve with honor as individuals and as units and would like nothing more than to serve the nation in peace time.

[msmaggie]

This brings to mind Barbara Tuchman's fabulous book "The March of Folly". I was one of those people who predicted this would end up a huge debacle, though I think the actual term I used was clutter-fuck. What is amazing to me is how many people now claim they were always against the war, no matter really, it's just interesting.

What is even more amazing after reading part of the NDU document is the idea that these clowns took our country to war without anything resembling a serious strategy review. No challenge to assumptions, no back up plan should assumptions proof faulty, It's just astonishing. I have worked for companies that have less than a couple million in revenue who have a better handle on developing and implementing strategies.

It should be illegal to be this stupid.

[wmbear]

I WAS OUT IN THE STREETS...

In the fall of 2002, marching against what anyone with any intelligence could see was Bush's determination to invade Iraq. This actually became clear in the summer of 2002, when the Bush administration began its troop buildup in Kuwait. By the end of the year, it was pretty clear (again, to anyone with any intelligence) that Bush was hell-bent on invading Iraq come whatever the outcome of the UN weapons inspections and whatever concessions Saddam was willing to make. Bush & Co. were really only just playing for time to complete the buildup and prepare for the invasion. And it was pretty clear he wasn't putting all those troops into Kuwait just so he could pull them out again. Thus those idiots in Congress who voted for the Authorization of Force bill ought to have known better and didn't.

Even if there were WMDs (which there weren't) the better argument was to give the UN at least a few months to search for them. The real reason this didn't happen, of course, was because Bush had to invade before the scorching desert summer months hit and made the plan much more difficult to execute. That's why he struck in March of 2003 and couldn't wait any longer, especially since that was always the intention anyway (as anyone with any intelligence could see).

[shanester]

Evertime I read real honest reports like this one and not the endless BS that comes out of the WH I'm reminded of Rumsfeld's famous quote b4 the war started: "I don't think we'll be there more than 6 months"

Yeah right!

[lippp]

That's 'cause he really meant "I don't think we'll be there more than 6 months. At least 20 years is more likely."

[suntzu]

Bush and his neocon cohorts will claim that at worst, the Iraq war is just a "debacle" and not a "quagmire."

[serialcoma]

Someone would need to explain the meaning of those words to bush and, once that herculean task is accomplished, spend further months teaching him to pronounce them correctly.

[wmbear]

YOUR ABSOLUTELY RIGHT...

I'm imagining Bush hearing about the Pentagon report and saying, "Debacle? Hey, that means we're winning, right?"

[robodweeb]

Don't tell McClone.

It will break the old guy's heart.

[desmirl]

Can't you just imagine Bush sitting in the oval office, chuckling to himself as he enjoys the thought of serving this platter of steaming horse dung to his Democrat successor?

[freedomis]

Now it starts;they are throwing rummy under the bus,who is next?Tony

[Tom95134]

He should have been under the bus from day one of the Bush administration. He was Cheney's pick and Cheney protected his miserable ass for much too long. Those two have been peeing in each others pocket every since the Nixon administration.

[ChangeNow]

I volunteer to drive the bus!

[Tom95134]

Great article. McClatchy comes through again with great reporting.

[CuriousPerson]

That pic reminds me of Pink Floyd..

All in all you just another brick in the wall.

[JohnFromCensornati]

Bring the boys back home
Don't leave the children on their own
Bring the boys back home