Occupation Plan for Iraq Faulted in Army History

[swag]

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — Soon after American forces toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, Gen. Tommy R. Franks surprised senior Army officers by revamping the Baghdad-based military command.

The decision reflected the assumption by General Franks, the top American commander for the Iraq invasion, that the major fighting was over. But according to an Army history that is to be made public on Monday, the move put the military effort in the hands of a short-staffed headquarters led by a newly promoted three-star general, and was made over the objections of the Army’s vice chief of staff.

“The move was sudden and caught most of the senior commanders in Iraq unaware,” states the history, which adds that the new headquarters “was not configured for the types of responsibilities it received.”

An aide to General Franks said that the former commander had covered Iraq decisions in his book, and General Franks told Army historians that it was the Pentagon’s responsibility to make sure the new Iraq headquarters was properly established.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/washington/29army.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=12146

[downindixie]

1. yea! Right!

He did what bush wanted, an extended stay!

[Doctor_J]

2. That's why Franks got rewarded - a complete debacle ordered

by Cheney.

[underpants]

3. This article has more to do with how the report was formed

but this looks to be an interesting volume to digest.

Still the authoritative history so far ( up to when it was published) is "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks.

CobraII is the authoritative history of the invasion.

[maddezmom]

4. kick

[Lone_Star_Dem]

5. US army blames leaders over post-war Iraq

Source: The Guardian

The US army has told of errors, poor planning and complacency among its own top commanders in a warts-and-all official history of the steep descent into violence that followed the Iraq war.

In a 696-page account, army historians fault military and political leaders for focusing excessively on toppling Saddam Hussein in 2003 without looking towards a broader transition towards a stable society. Actions by the former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the top US commander during the Iraq invasion, Tommy Franks, are singled out in the study, which was delayed for six months to allow senior army figures to review drafts.

"The transition to a new campaign was not well thought out, planned for and prepared for before it began," says the history, On Point II: Transition to the New Campaign, published by an internal army thinktank called the contemporary operations study team. "The assumptions about the nature of the post-Saddam Iraq on which the transition was planned proved to be largely incorrect."

It says Franks took senior colleagues by surprise by moving to a slimmed-down, short-staffed headquarters shortly after the invasion of Iraq was complete. He told his officers to be ready to cut back on forces in preparation for "an abbreviated period of stability operations".

The study describes defence chiefs in Washington as ambivalent from the start about a "ponderous, troop-heavy, logistics intensive and costly" ongoing campaign to restore stability. "The did commit resources to the planning of post-invasion operations," it says. "In retrospect, however, the overall effort appears to have been disjointed and, at times, poorly coordinated, perhaps reflecting the department's ambivalence towards nation-building."



Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/30/iraq.usforeignpolicy

[noamnety]

6. US Army leadership falsely assumes

that a stable Iraq was the goal.

Their paper itself - and the perspective it takes - furthers the Bush agenda in that way.

[daleo]

7. A mistake is a mistake

The invasion was a mistake, and it couldn't have been anything else no matter how "professionally" it was managed.

[gratuitous]

8. Why does the Army hate the troops?

What, are we not doing that one anymore? Damn, I have to quit just skimming the RNC blast faxes!

[krispos42]

9. Victory has a thousand fathers. Defeat is an orphan. n/t

[LynnTheDem]

10. Does the official history also point out the FACT the the war against Iraq is, was,

always will be, illegal?