"Huge mistakes were made, and I want to be very clear on this: They were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad."
- Richard Perle, American Hero

Posted by: Tim at November 4, 2006 04:50 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Have you no shame?" was the question asked rhetorically by a lawyer defending his client before the HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) in the 1950's. Though McCarthyism and the Red Scare seem like events of ancient history from our perspective, their tactics were employed in the hysterical war propaganda prior to the invasion of Iraq and against dissenters.
And two days ago on Fox News's The Big Story, I saw and heard John Gibson, the great moral defender of the pagan jihad on Christmas, call Seymour Hersh and the editors and writers at the NYT fifth columnists.
Fifth columnist? Can extraordinary rendition to a re-education camp somehow in the wilds of the great southwest be far behind for these nefarious fifth columnists?
So why would a neocon speech writer like David Frum, who coined the infamous "axis of evil" phrase used in one of President Bush's State of the Union addresses, have any shame about the foreign policy debacle in Iraq? Does a rat fleeing a sinking ship have shame?
Of course he cited in his defense that a few sons and daughters of the neocons, who supported this disaster, are now or have served in the military and US agencies there.
But I remember President Johnson pointing out to critics of a previous foreign policy debacle that his two son-in-laws, Chuck Robb and Patrick Nugent, were serving in the armed forces there.
Does Jean Schmidt running for re-election in her district in Cincinnati have any shame for calling John Murtha "a coward" who wanted "to cut and run" after he held a press conference for a redeployment of American soldiers in Iraq?
And I recall, Greg, that you characterized a soldier from the Abu Gharif prison scandal as an "American hater," when he came forward and told his story on the op-ed page of the NYT.
"Have you no shame?" could be the question anyone who supported this war must now ask himself.

Posted by: geroge hoffman at November 4, 2006 05:04 PM | Permalink to this comment

Come now gentlemen, not even a word or two about your own roles in this sorry affair? Of course, no one would have expected this crowd to prostrate themselves in protracted mea culpas or such (it's always someone else's fault, of course), but how about just a wee little smidgen of honor?

I read this opening paragraph, and lterally thought this post was going to be about the far-right wing's reaction to the news that as a result of the release of unexamined secret papers from the Saddam Regime, highly classified nuclear weapon information was disclosed.

Having read the excerpt, its abundantly clear that not a single one of them actually understood where we "went wrong in Iraq" and how it was their own venality and incompetence that led us there. The complete lack of detailed planning for post-Invasion Iraq is why Iraq is such a mess today --- and since most of these cowards were in the inner circle of White House policy decision at the time the decision to invade Iraq was made, it is their failure to insist upon a comprehensive, sensible plan for post-invasion Iraq that they need to take responsibility for.

(This is not to say that things would have gone swimmingly if we'd done a better job of planning for the post-invasion period, only that the current conditions can be traced to the failure to plan).

These men were the architects of this war, they showed us a picture of a shining mansion, and dug the hole where the foundation would be poured --- but never even bothered to insist that the right foundation materials would be used before beginning construction, let alone provide an actual blueprint for the mansion itself.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at November 4, 2006 05:10 PM | Permalink to this comment

Were they saying in October 2004 that huge mistakes had been made, and that a major course correction was required? I don't see how anyone for whom the answer to that question is 'no' can be considered 'serious' about Iraq.

Posted by: CharleyCarp at November 4, 2006 05:53 PM | Permalink to this comment

Here's something worth reading over:

National Security Archive Update, November 4, 2006

POST-SADDAM IRAQ: THE WAR GAME

"Desert Crossing" 1999 Assumed 400,000 Troops and Still a Mess

http://www.nsarchive.org

For more information contact:
John Prados - 301/565-0564 or Roger Strother - 202/994-7000

Washington, DC, November 4, 2006 - A series of war games held in 1999 specifically to anticipate problems following an invasion of Iraq assumed a deployment of 400,000 troops to maintain order, seal borders and provide for other security needs. But the games, known as Desert Crossing, were apparently ignored by the Defense Department. When CENTCOM commander Gen. Anthony Zinni, after his retirement, advised planners to refer back to Desert Crossing as they prepared for the 2003 invasion, the response reportedly was, "Never heard of it."

Now, seven years later, documentation on preparations for the games and detailed After Action records have surfaced in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the National Security Archive, which is posting the materials on its Web site today.

"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," commented National Security Archive director Thomas Blanton, "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."

Desert Crossing, which amounted to a feasibility study for part of the main war plan for Iraq -- OPLAN 1003-98 -- tested "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios of a post-war, post-Saddam, Iraq. The After Action Report presented its recommendations for further planning regarding regime change in Iraq. The results drew some pessimistic conclusions regarding the immediate possible outcomes of an invasion. A number of these mirror the events which actually occurred after Saddam was overthrown.

* "When the crisis occurs, policy makers will have to deal with a large number of critical issues nearly simultaneously, including demonstrating U.S. leadership and resolve, managing Iraq's neighbors, and rapid policy formulation."

* "A change in regimes does not guarantee stability. 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."

* "Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq. ... The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran ... More than any other country in the region, the principals were most concerned by how Iran would respond to a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq."

* "Iraqi exile opposition weaknesses are significant ... The debate on post-Saddam Iraq [during the war game] also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups ... [T]here was no dispute that if the United States were to support them, much must be done in order for these groups to be politically credible within Iraq."

These documents were posted today on the Web site of the National Security Archive:

http://www.nsarchive.org

_______

Posted by: B.D. Reader at November 4, 2006 06:39 PM | Permalink to this comment

It seems to me that the Perle article is in fact, Perle trying to stick a longer knife in Colin Powell's back.

Posted by: Ghost of Tom Joad at November 4, 2006 08:08 PM | Permalink to this comment