To what extent has the occupation of Iraq derailed due to lack of planning?

[Zevico]

Would planning have improved the occupation of Iraq?
What sort of planning? What resources could the United States have availed itself of in planning for the occupation?
Or do you think that Iraq's state of instability and division would have occurred regardless of US planning or preparation?
Do you think that planning for a different goal (creating a new pro-US dictatorship) would have been more successful than planning for creating a democratic Iraq?

[Dinner]

I would say it was the primary reason. In the first year there wasn't any insurgency and even when I arrived 11 months after the invasion the insurgency was very low key. People kept complaining that the bridges weren't fixed, that the water didn't run, and that the lights worked even less then under Saddam. I honestly believe that if Bush and Blair had really thrown money at the problem and got reconstruction off to a running start them most Iraqis would have been happy and there would have been little to no insurgency.

Other key events were making 1 million trained military age males unemployed at a time there was almost no chance they could find other employment and waiting two years before allowing elections. If we had simply said here's your new constitution like we did to the Japanese, kept the Army on the payroll but confined to barracks, and held elections with in 1 year then things would have gone much more smoothly.

[Dinner]

Sectarian conflict would still be a looming problem but when people are employed and making money they tend not to whine about what there neighbors do and do not have quite as much. When times get bad then the historical they did this and we want revenge stuff starts coming out.

[Patroklos]

All of those things you mention would not have been fixed inside 1-2 years regardless O, even here in America. Bridges and power plants take a long time to build under the best conditions.

The primary mistake that has led to or exaserbated all of our problems was the disbanding of the Iraqi Army. Even if all we did was bottle them up in their bases for the initial years, all those youth and expericance fighers (including Saddam's most ruthless) would have 1.) not be on the streets and 2.) had a paying job.

That had little do do with planning, and in my opinion all our problems that are attributable to lack of planning (or rather improper/wrong planning) are the magnitude they are because of that.

[Dinner]

Everyone kept saying Saddam got everything fixed with in half a year of the first war how come mighty America can't get the lights to work two years later? You say it takes time and please have patience but that excuse wears thin fairly fast. It ended up frustrating people and the last thing you want is a bunch of unemployed frustrated people if you want to keep order.

I think the answer was the politicians weren't really trying and Bush thought he could just make a few speeches, ignore the matter, and that would placate people. Eventually I did start seeing reconstruction projects start but by then it was 18 months after the war and was a response to the insurgency. There was definitely a lack of planning or care about reconstruction until the nightly news stories began showing daily insurgent attacks. By then it was a little late and there was already and organized resisitence. In retrospect it would have been much better to have it ready to roll out on day one so that at least the Iraqi people could see daily progress being made.

The next big problem was most of the contractors were foreigners when we should have hired locals to lower unemployment. Once the attacks started the foreign contractors had a hard time doing anything due to security concerns and unemployed Iraqis had nothing better to do then stand around complaining about rich foreigners stealing all the jobs.

[Patroklos]

Everyone kept saying Saddam got everything fixed with in half a year of the first war how come mighty America can't get the lights to work two years later? You say it takes time and please have patience but that excuse wears thin fairly fast. It ended up frustrating people and the last thing you want is a bunch of unemployed frustrated people if you want to keep order.

Agreed, which is why disbanding the army was such a retarded move.

As to the infrastucture, I never heard anything like that after 91. Hell, it takes 3 months for the concrete to cure on any decent bridge project. And I would love to hear how he build new power plants without the ability to buy the materials abroad.

In either, case, I agree that patience wears thin whether that is based on rational thinking or not. I think it is safe to say than many Iraqis had a very unrealistic vision of just how fast and cheap their transformation would be. Not entirely their fault, as we have been telling everyone across the globe about the magic of democracy for decades, to the point that we believed it ourselves.

[Arrian]

Would planning have improved the occupation of Iraq?

Yes, of course. Planning > No planning. That doesn't mean planning = rousing success, of course.

What sort of planning?

Step 1 would've been simple research to attain a better understanding of the people we were going to be dealing with. Not just the simple Sunni/Shia stuff (which our brilliant leadership STILL can't keep straight), but the individual tribes and leaders. Who are they, what motivates them, etc.

Step 2 would've been a reasonable plan to prevent chaos in the aftermath of the fall of the Baathists. More troops + a plan on how to use them to keep order.

Step 3 would've been an Iraqi Marshall Plan. It would've been hugely expensive, and the public would've balked at the price tag, but if we're talking about trying to "do it right" this, IMO, is a critical part.

Step 4 would've been contingency planning for guerrila resistance (essentially creating and using Petraeus' field manual for counterinsurgency).

Step 5 would've been a plan to tackle the political problem: how do you get Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to cooperate in a (quasi?) democratic government? Dunno how (seeing as this may well have been impossible).

What resources could the United States have availed itself of in planning for the occupation?

Anyone familiar with the people (peoples, really) of Iraq. They obviously did work with the exiles like Chalabi, and had whatever info they got from the CIA & other intelligence agencies...

I don't know if lack of resources was the problem. I think it was more a lack of desire to learn (this requires accepting that one doesn't already know everything). Admitting ignorance would've been a crucial step.

Or do you think that Iraq's state of instability and division would have occurred regardless of US planning or preparation?

Entirely possible. We may have been able to keep the lid on for a while, but it's certainly possible that, as soon as we withdrew (or even before, notwithstanding good planning and more troops) it would blow up into civil war.

Do you think that planning for a different goal (creating a new pro-US dictatorship) would have been more successful than planning for creating a democratic Iraq?

More successful... that certainly sounds like a more achieveable goal. Could they have sold the war to the public that way, though?

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

No amount of planning would have prevented the disaster. The all of the other issues Oerdin brings up contributed to the problem but the fundamental issue is that we are foreign occupiers.

[Sandman]

A lot of positions in the CPA were handed out to Bush loyalists with no experience of government. There was also a demented belief in the transformative power of free markets. Get rid of those, and things would have gone smoother.

[germanos]

The planning was fine.


Problem is no WMD's were found.

And al Qaeda showed up late .

[Dr Strangelove]

Not having an adequate number of Arabic speaking liason personel was a major problem too.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Arrian
...
Step 5 would've been a plan to tackle the political problem: how do you get Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to cooperate in a (quasi?) democratic government? Dunno how (seeing as this may well have been impossible).

Step 6: Don't invade - it's a quagmire.

Not having an adequate number of Arabic speaking liason personel was a major problem too.

On top of that they discharged the gay ones.

[TCO]

We should have left as soon as we had Saddam (and hung him ourselves). Then let the Iraqis deal with things. It's their frigging country. Invading is more fun than occupying anyhow.

[TCO]

Originally posted by germanos
The planning was fine.


Problem is no WMD's were found.

And al Qaeda showed up late .

That's funny ass stuff. And I was for it. But I think we should have just said oops and boogied. Bush is suck a pole smoker that he didn't have the stones to say that he made a mistake. Their are guys with no arms and legs and lots of widows because he can't deal with the real world.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Sandman
A lot of positions in the CPA were handed out to Bush loyalists with no experience of government. There was also a demented belief in the transformative power of free markets. Get rid of those, and things would have gone smoother.

Bush is able to give positions to the CPA out? Where are Agathon and Chegitz when you need them!