NYT: Army's Official History Of Iraq War Faults Occupation Plan

[babylonsister]

Occupation Plan for Iraq Faulted in Army History
Pool photo by Karen Ballard

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: June 29, 2008


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 staff for the new headquarters was not initially “configured for the types of responsibilities it received.”

The story of the American occupation of Iraq has been the subject of numerous books, studies and memoirs. But now the Army has waded into the highly charged debate with its own nearly 700-page account: “On Point II: Transition to the New Campaign.”

The unclassified study, the second volume in a continuing history of the Iraq conflict, is as noteworthy for who prepared it as for what it says. In essence, the study is an attempt by the Army to tell the story of one of the most contentious periods in its history to military experts — and to itself.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/washington/29army.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1214696768-z6MyePTWPwmdPiWv8UUTKw

[jtrockville]

1. Plan? There was a plan?

Here's a statement of the testimony David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States gave before the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on National Security back in July of 2006. At the time, nothing Bush produced so far - the "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" (NSVI) combined with the 7 supporting documents - met the GAO's requirements for an effective national strategy.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06953t.pdf

He concludes (emphasis mine):

The November 2005 NSVI and supporting documents represent the results of efforts to improve the strategic planning process for the challenging and costly U.S. mission in Iraq. Although the strategy is an improvement over earlier efforts, it is incomplete even when considered in the context of all supporting documents, both classified and unclassified. Without additional information on roles and responsibilities, future contributions and costs, and outcome-based metrics, the strategy does not provide the Congress with a clear road map for achieving victory in Iraq. The formation of the new Iraqi government provides an opportunity for the United States government to re-examine its strategy and more closely align its efforts and objectives with those of the Iraqi people and other donors....

[babylonsister]

2. The Army is trying to justify the occupation; seems like they're having

a difficult time of it.

[jtrockville]

3. Aren't we all.

[babylonsister]

5. No kidding. But this is 'official'. Or not. I wonder if their answer

will be to change history.

[bemildred]

4. Ditto that.

The arrogant twits were winging it from day one.