What were they supposed to do, role the document up and puppy train the “insurgents” ?

Army Historian Cites Lack of Postwar Plan

Major Calls Effort in Iraq ‘Mediocre’

By Thomas E. Ricks

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24891-2004Dec24.html

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, December 25, 2004; Page A01

“There was no Phase IV plan” for occupying Iraq after the combat phase, writes Maj. Isaiah Wilson III, who served as an official historian of the campaign and later as a war planner in Iraq. While a variety of government offices had considered the possible situations that would follow a U.S. victory, Wilson writes, no one produced an actual document laying out a strategy to consolidate the victory after major combat operations ended.

During the period in question, from April to June 2003, Wilson was a researcher for the Army’s Operation Iraqi Freedom Study Group. Then, from July 2003 to March 2004, he was the chief war planner for the 101st Airborne Division, which was stationed in northern Iraq.

As a result of the failure to produce a plan, Wilson asserts, the U.S. military lost the dominant position in Iraq in the summer of 2003 and has been scrambling to recover ever since. “In the two to three months of ambiguous transition, U.S. forces slowly lost the momentum and the initiative . . . gained over an off-balanced enemy,” he writes. “The United States, its Army and its coalition of the willing have been playing catch-up ever since.”

Many in the Army have blamed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon civilians for the unexpectedly difficult occupation of Iraq, but Wilson reserves his toughest criticism for Army commanders who, he concludes, failed to grasp the strategic situation in Iraq and so not did not plan properly for victory. He concludes that those who planned the war suffered from “stunted learning and a reluctance to adapt.”

Wilson contends that a lack of sufficient troops was a consequence of the earlier, larger problem of failing to understand that prevailing in Iraq involved more than just removing Hussein. “This overly simplistic conception of the ‘war’ led to a cascading undercutting of the war effort: too few troops, too little coordination with civilian and governmental/non-governmental agencies . . . and too little allotted time to achieve ’success,’ ” he writes.

“Here is today’s AP fifth column entry, another story about “ignorant” Americans who don’t know that Islam teaches peace and their Muslim victims.

You would never guess from the piece (with comments from CAIR) that Mr. Halimah, the victim of our ignorance, that he is a member of a virulently anti-Israel Palestinian support group. Wouldn’t that be relevant to the story, and wasn’t it omitted purposefully because it would slant the story a different way?”

Maybe the key to the article is in the last paragraph:

“Our religion stresses acceptance by our neighbors,” Halimah said.

That is a true statement. Islam does stress that the infidels must accept Islam. He does not say that his religion stresses that Mulims must accept their neighbors.

I am wondering why, if Islam is the religion of peace, why peace can rarely be found in Muslim nations? Fruit doesn’t usually fall far from the tree.

“allied military officials said they were hoping to reduce American forces here at a faster rate, drawing the American presence in Iraq down to less than two divisions by the fall.”

I don’t know how you interpret that statement, purportedly made to a NYT reporter by nameless “allied military officials,” but I see it as an expression of hope. Of course, when the Islamic Fascists began their terror campaign that hope was not realized. None of the other passages you quote can be interpreted as promises either.

This may come as a surprise to you, but in war your enemies frequently don’t cooperate in allowing you do what you want, so then you must do what you must. Mountebanks like you do a disservice to the war efforts by claiming that failure to win the war on a timetable constitutes misfeasance or malfeasance. But then I suspect that’s your goal anyway.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ?

CAP’N BILLY: “Funny… I don’t remember being told any of those things.”

Ok, but here’s one mention of an early withdrawal:

Allies to Retain Larger Iraq Force as Strife Persists

By Michael R. Gordon

The New York Times

29 May 2003

Earlier this month, allied military officials said they were hoping to reduce American forces here at a faster rate, drawing the American presence in Iraq down to less than two divisions by the fall.

TERRYE:”The national policy of the US will be regime change in Iraq because Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and Bill Clinton guranteed us Saddam would use those weapons if he were not removed from power. Remember that? ”

Yes and I also remember these comments:

POWELL, 2/24/2001: ?He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors? http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

?He [Saddam] does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.? Rice, 7/29/01

?The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn’t have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained.? Powell, 5/15/01

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have evidence that he’s harboring terrorists?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is–in the past, there have been some activities related to terrorism by Saddam Hussein. But at this stage, you know, the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein’s bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned. http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html

pdf format http://www.greenbag.org/McGurk.pdf

AP may have significant civil liability exposure to the victims’ families in American courts, under the legal theory of civil conspiracy. The conspiracy objective would be to give publicity to terrorists. Every person or organization agreeing to act in concert to achieve a conspiracy’s goals is liable for every act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

American courts have taken jurisdiction, and awarded huge civil judgments, in far more questionable cases. Here is the Lexis summary of Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472(D.C. Cir. 1983):

“The personal representative of the physician’s estate brought a wrongful death and survival action seeking damages based on consequences resulting from the physician’s death during a burglary. The district court found that appellant, who was not a participant in the actual burglary, was jointly and severally liable with her live-in boyfriend for the killing of the physician under theories of conspiracy and aiding and abetting and awarded a monetary judgment against both of them. Appellant sought review on the issue of her liability. The court found based on the record that appellant knew the purpose of her boyfriend’s nightly outings and the means that he used to acquire their wealth. Further, appellant was a long-time willing partner in assisting her boyfriend dispose of the burglary proceeds. Appellant acted as a secretary and recordkeeper for the burglary enterprise and maintained financial transactions solely in her name. Appellant also took unsubstantiated income tax deductions related to the burglary proceeds. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment finding appellant jointly and severally liable as a co-conspirator and joint venturer.”

The (maybe) new element is the journalist seems happy to hand the knife to the killer. Who would expect the killer to refuse the help?